Farm Produce: Prices

Lord Geraint: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have any plan to introduce legislation prohibiting the purchase of farm produce for less than the cost of production from British farmers.

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the Government recognise the serious difficulties facing the farming industry. They have introduced a number of measures to assist farmers, injecting some £1.35 billion into the sector since 1997. The Government are anxious to see fair and equitable relationships between supermarkets and their suppliers. We urge all members of the supply chain to act responsibly, especially in the current difficult circumstances. However, we have no plans to intervene in the market by introducing legislation of the kind suggested.

Lord Geraint: My Lords, I am sure that the farmers of this country will be very disappointed with that reply. Is the Minister aware that at the moment some supermarkets are paying 50 pence per kilo less for beef than they did a fortnight ago, but, on the other hand, they are charging consumers 40 per cent more for the same meat? That is deplorable. What do the Government intend to do about it?

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the reason for not supporting legislation of the kind suggested is wide-ranging, not least because of the likelihood that it will not be effective in helping the farmers for whom the noble Lord, Lord Geraint, has many concerns. Of course, I recognise that concern exists with regard to the prices received by farmers who are participating in the limited reopening of the supply chain. As I said, my right honourable friend has made clear that we believe that the whole chain should act responsibly, one towards the other. Today, the Meat and Livestock Commission is carrying out a survey of participating abattoirs, and I understand that it plans to resume normal reporting of prices soon. I hope that that will bring transparency into what is at present not a normal market place.

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, are the Government aware of the great extent of the concern among farmers in relation to this matter? I believe that we all appreciate that legislation needs to be responsive rather than reactive. However, I wonder whether bland urging is sufficient for people who are feeling very vulnerable at this time.

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I believe that we should respond and we are doing so. Indeed, following the Competition Commission's thorough investigation of the relationship between all parts of the food chain, a code of conduct is being drawn up. It is currently being put out for consultation with producers. I do not doubt the strength of the concerns that have been expressed, and I am fully aware of those concerns within the farming community. What I doubt is whether a measure of this sort would be effective. It has been tried in a limited way in, I believe, only two other countries--France and Ireland--with very dubious results.

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that a wider problem exists in relation to this matter? I refer to the common agricultural policy. There is the prospect of EU enlargement and the associated trend towards the renationalisation of subsidies. In addition, of course, there are pressures from the WTO. Is not reform of the CAP the key to a real solution to this problem in the medium term?

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I believe that our farmers would benefit from a radical restructuring of the common agricultural policy. That has been the policy of this Government. We have been working with other member states who are reform-minded, and the new ministerial lead in Germany gives us added opportunities to work towards that. A restructuring that moves away from production support towards valuing the many things that farmers do--not least their stewardship of the countryside--would be of great benefit.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, has the noble Baroness seen and heard the widespread reports, both in the press and on the radio, that the exceptionally low prices being paid to farmers by abattoirs are due to the high charges raised by the Meat Hygiene Service and the veterinary charges incurred because of the extra vigilance required? If that is the case, it is a matter in which the Government can take a hand. Will she please do her utmost to ensure that farmers at least receive a fair price? At the moment, they have no bargaining power.

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I have, indeed, seen the reports. However, this scheme has been operating, not fully, for only 24 hours. I do not believe that a considered analysis of the factors that are influencing pricing throughout the chain can take place yet. She is right to point out the additional veterinary costs. Those are appropriate because we do not want to spread disease. However, it will be necessary to look at how those are absorbed and by whom. Equally, production through the abattoirs will be slower, not least because of the additional precautions that must be taken. Cleansing and disinfecting will take much longer, and there will be many single trips. All those factors will lead to a distortion of the normal price mechanisms.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, while I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Geraint, about the purchasing power of the supermarkets, do the Government not agree also that they should be equally concerned about the purchasing power of the catering trade, which, in terms of quantity, purchases more than the supermarkets?
	Secondly, what are the Government going to do about the extra production costs borne by our UK farmers over and above those of farmers in the EU and worldwide; namely, higher veterinary costs, our Meat Hygiene Service costs, farm machinery, fertiliser and fuel costs and many others?

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, as the noble Baroness knows, on each of those issues we are undertaking work to ensure that we have a level playing field for our farmers as against competitors. It is interesting to note from the standing veterinary committee meeting yesterday that controls very much like our own were imposed throughout the Community in regard to foot and mouth in order to harmonise the conditions for the livestock industry throughout member states.
	The noble Baroness made an important point about the catering trade. Members of the catering trade are very large consumers and important players in the chain. We bring together all the elements of the industry, and have done since the outbreak of FMD, having regular meetings once or twice a week with all of them.

Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, surely the only way of avoiding the consequences of joining is by not joining?

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, there are many wider issues to be debated arising out of foot and mouth disease. At the moment, we should try to concentrate on trying to fight the disease and to get production back into some sort of normality.

Theatres

Lord Harrison: asked Her Majesty's Government;
	What is their response to the report from the Theatres Trust that many of Britain's most historic and best-loved theatres are uncomfortable and unsafe.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Theatres Trust's annual report did indeed make reference to theatre audiences in uncomfortable seats but it did not state that any of the country's theatres are unsafe. The Theatres Trust says that nearly all of the theatre buildings in London's West End, most of which are in commercial hands, need improving to meet modern standards of comfort and safety. The Government welcome the work of the trust in advising theatre managements and others on how theatre buildings can best serve the needs of modern audiences.

Lord Harrison: My Lords, performing so ably, as he does, on the best upholstered red-Bench live theatre in town here in the House of Lords, does my noble friend agree with me, nevertheless, that the poor physical condition of many of our theatres compromises the enjoyment and safety of theatregoers, which indeed is confirmed by the Theatres Trust's report?
	In addition, given that more people still go to live theatre in this country than attend live football every week, does my noble friend consider that the Government might commission a Taylor report into British auditoria?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we have the Theatres Trust doing that job very effectively. It was set up by the British government, specifically by my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney, in 1976. It performs extremely effectively in that way. I do not think that we need an extra report on the subject.

Viscount Falkland: My Lords, surely the report is right to point out the particular difficulties in the West End, where there is little scope for refurbishment and improvement compared with other parts of the country. Does the noble Lord agree that, since the average body mass and height of our population have increased enormously since the days when most of those theatres were built, there needs to be some creative thinking about how that space should be used? Does the Minister agree that the number of seats should be reduced so that the level of comfort is increased while at the same time increasing the amount of standing room so that poor people and young people in particular could gain admission at a reduced price? If the entertainment bored them, as Richard Eyre tells us it may do now, they could then slip away unseen.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I did not expect that the theme of the Taylor report was going to lead to us talking about terraces in our theatres. I do not think that that would be a very good idea. The problem arises particularly in commercial theatres in the West End of London and in a number of our regional and provincial theatres. The problem that they have is that the sites are extremely restricted and they have great difficulty in raising money for capital programmes. We cannot help them by intervening in commercial theatre. But what we can do, and what we shall be doing, is to increase the amount of public money which goes to the touring theatre, to the support of the art itself rather than the venue for the arts. In turn, that will help the economics of the commercial theatres and will help them to have money for other purposes.

Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the way to become more fully aware of the problems of the theatre is to listen to the Theatres Trust? Is my noble friend aware also that both the previous government and the present Government have shown signs that they appreciate the nature of the problem? I am afraid that in future, the trust will need more backing for the financial consequences of the situation which it now faces. I hope that when the request comes forward, the Government will be eager to fulfil it.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have already expressed my warm appreciation for the work of the Theatres Trust and the role of my noble friend in setting it up. Of course, he is right that what is needed is more money. But the difficulty that I have is that today is 7th March and tomorrow, on 8th March, the Government will be announcing a further allocation of £25 million to the theatre in England, which will clearly help a large number of the programmes which have been referred to in debate this afternoon. But I cannot give the detail of how that £25 million is to be allocated.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, recalling the experience on the Greater London Council which the Minister and I shared, will he join with me in welcoming the funds that have been raised to restore the Hackney Empire to, I understand, its full grandeur?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, under the arm's length principle, that matter is devolved to the Arts Council. I am extremely sympathetic to what the noble Baroness says, as I am sympathetic to her reference to our joint painful experiences on the GLC Film Viewing Committee.

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: My Lords, without in any way undervaluing the importance of buildings, does my noble friend agree that audiences are attracted into the theatres mainly because of what takes place there? Does he also agree that there is a significant dependence in the commercial sector of theatre on work that originates in the subsidised sector? Can he add to what he said about how the Government will help money and other resources go towards theatre practice as opposed to theatre building?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I strongly agree with what my noble friend says. Historically, support from the National Lottery has been to buildings rather than to the people who work in them. More recently, the Arts Council, encouraged by the Government, has had a deliberate policy to divert that support from the buildings to the people. In particular, the support that the Arts Council now gives to touring theatre and productions for new theatre audiences should be a great encouragement to both commercial and subsidised theatres.

Multiple Sclerosis: Prescribing Policy

Lord Addington: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE), in assessing the cost-effectiveness of disease-modifying drugs in multiple sclerosis, will take into account all relevant cost savings to health and social services and the social security system.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the appraisal approach taken by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence has been set out very clearly. NICE will directly take into account the impact on National Health Service and personal social services budgets. It is also open to NICE to take into account a wider range of factors and it is open to those who submit evidence to include evidence on such a range of factors.

Lord Addington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does he agree that there is a general feeling that an across-government look at funding has not taken place? It is difficult to see how the sums involved can be justified because someone who does not receive beta interferon or--if I can pronounce it properly--glutarimer acetate quickly enough may end up being dependent on social services and on the social security system for his income for many years as opposed to being able to generate his own income and pay taxes.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, certainly those factors can be taken into consideration by NICE. It is up to the manufacturer or the patient group concerned, if it has robust evidence, to ask for that to be considered by NICE. On the general point raised by the noble Lord, of course I understand the keenness of MS sufferers for the final NICE decision to be made. The whole basis of NICE is that its decisions are made on the most robust evidence possible. At the moment NICE is going through the process, which is taking some time, but in the end it is better to be thorough.

Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, in desperation, many people with multiple sclerosis who are waiting for these drugs are purchasing them privately and putting themselves ever more deeply into debt to do so? What kind of comment is that on NICE's priorities, and indeed on the founding principles of the National Health Service in which all of us on these Benches, not least my noble friend, take such legitimate pride?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, these are matters for NICE. Clearly, if any delay that could be put at the door of NICE were involved in coming to a final recommendation, that would be a matter for considerable regret. My understanding is that there is a systematic approach with, first, a provisional appraisal and then a final appraisal, after which there is an appeal option, which has been gone through, and a decision is made in the light of that for more work to be considered. At the end of the day the whole purpose of NICE is to give the best possible evidence available to the NHS of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. It is important that the integrity of that process is maintained.

Lord Elton: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall sending me a Written Answer on 16th October in which he revealed that the number of people who had died of multiple sclerosis-related diseases was almost exactly double the number of people who died of AIDS and that in the last year in which a comparison could be made for cost, 1995-96, the money spent on research into AIDS was no less than 216 times greater than that spent on research into MS-related diseases? Does the Minister consider that there is something wrong with the priorities?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord is right to draw attention to the number of people affected by multiple sclerosis. The fact that we have referred this matter to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence indicates the Government's seriousness of purpose in this area. I regret, as do many noble Lords, that the institute is taking so long to come to a conclusion--it will be some months before it does--but at the end of the day it is vital that the process is of the highest integrity. The whole purpose of NICE is to ensure that we have the consistent, high-quality treatment that we want for MS sufferers.

Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, while NICE has carried out some excellent work--it is chaired by a most distinguished clinical scientist--does the Minister agree that the timetable for assessing the situation is exceptionally lengthy, considering that we are told that no decision will be made before November of this year? Bearing in mind that international research has demonstrated, without doubt, the efficacy of beta interferon and glutarimer acetate in relapsing and remitting multiple sclerosis, is it right that at the moment only 2 per cent of patients in the UK receive it compared with between 13 and 20 per cent of patients in other countries in the European Union? Can nothing be done to expedite the process?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, in relation to the number of people receiving beta interferon in the UK, the noble Lord is right. I believe it is between 2 and 3 per cent. There is a variation in prescribing rates through the rest of Europe ranging from 3 per cent in Turkey to 21 per cent in Austria, with prescribing rates in Germany, France and Italy at 12 per cent. I have listened with a great deal of sympathy to the noble Lord, but at the end of the day the whole purpose of NICE is to conduct a rigorous process. Clearly it is a rigorous process because it has gone through three stages, at the end of which an appeal has been upheld. It is having to commission and to look at more work. I believe that we should await the outcome of that work.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the Minister has described the process, but clearly it will be three years in the making. As the noble Lord, Lord Walton, has described, these drugs are widely available in other countries. Every minute matters for MS patients. Can the Minister affirm that the current determination has nothing whatever to do with the Government's concerns about the affordability of such drugs?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, absolutely. This is a matter entirely for NICE. At various stages the Government have been asked to provide evidence to NICE, but the decisions about the appraisal system and the decision of the appeal committee have nothing to do with the Government.

Earl Howe: My Lords, does the Minister accept that one of the main criticisms of the NICE process is that, while it is under way, effectively it imposes a blight on the treatment concerned, in the sense that health authorities are unwilling to authorise prescriptions for new patients? In the context of MS treatments which are now blighted in that way, will the Minister and his colleagues give serious consideration, pending the NICE judgment, to re-issuing the department's executive letter 95/97 which required health authorities to make drug treatments available to MS patients who need them?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the document is in circulation in the health service and the prescribing of beta interferon should continue in line with what is stated in it. Perhaps I may remind the noble Earl that NICE was set up because of the inheritance of widely differing prescribing regimes--postcode prescribing--and inconsistency. NICE provides greater consistency and enables the faster take-up of drugs and new technologies when they have been proven to be effective. As a result of judgments made by NICE, many millions of pounds of additional expenditure has been committed to the NHS for that purpose.

Foot and Mouth Disease: Compensation

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have any plans to compensate those whose livelihoods are under threat from the current outbreak of foot and mouth disease and who fall outside the scope of the current compensation scheme.

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the Government pay compensation on all animals slaughtered in order to control and eradicate foot and mouth disease. It is the long-standing policy of successive governments not to offer compensation for consequential losses associated with animal disease outbreaks.
	In recognition of the effects on the livestock industry of the current outbreak of FMD, last week the Government announced £156 million in agrimonetary compensation for dairy, beef and sheep farmers and are bringing forward £20 million from the financial year 2002-03 for the pig industry restructuring scheme, giving a total of £43 million for pig farmers. The Government will of course keep the situation under review.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, does the Minister accept that, unless the compensation scheme is widened, the fundamental review of agriculture which was promised by the Prime Minister last week will not be able to take effect? There will be a huge exodus of small family livestock farmers and hauliers and more small abattoirs will go out of business because their incomes have substantially decreased, in some cases to nothing, while their costs have substantially increased.
	Does the Minister also accept that the next few months will be critical? While the agrimonetary compensation is welcome, it was due in any event for other reasons. Does the Minister agree that widening the scheme is essential?

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Baroness rightly points out that the agrimonetary compensation is not specifically for those who have suffered loss as a consequence of FMD. When one calculates the amount of consequential loss and the sectors into which it is has gone, one can see that it is enormous and almost limitless. We have already seen a wide range of claims for compensation from those involved in, for example, tourism and sports fixtures in addition to those involved in farming, abattoirs and the retail industry, which might not be popular with many Members of your Lordships' House.
	The most important steps we can take are to make maximum use of the available non-state-aid mechanisms--and we have done that for the pig sector and through agrimonetary compensation; to get the disease under control; and to return working in the livestock industry to normal operation.

Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, I want to address an area in which the livestock industry of this country is world famous; namely, the export of pedigree animals throughout the world. Although it is helpful that the immediate value of such animals is of concern to livestock farmers, it takes many years to build up the pedigree flocks and herds and it takes many years to replace them. Do the Government have plans to help those involved in pedigree livestock to rebuild if their stocks are decimated by FMD; for example, by offering long-term loans at low interest rates?

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I understand the financial and emotional consequences of losing specialist herds which have taken people years and generations to build up. I said in my original Answer that we would keep the situation under review and of course specific cases will be made for specific areas of compensation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, pointed out. However, it would be wrong to hold out hope that there will be across-the-board compensation for every kind of consequential loss arising from these circumstances.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the signs erected by MAFF closing public rights of way and fields in which sheep and cattle are grazing are being pulled down by the public? Will she try to educate them through television and radio programmes?

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, from the beginning of the outbreak, Ministers, vets and those in local authorities responsible for the closures of rights of way have urged the public, most of whom have behaved responsibly, to avoid contact with livestock and any possible spreading of the disease. Occasionally, individuals behave irresponsibly. We can provide a great deal of education, but in some cases it will be necessary to prosecute.

Baroness Billingham: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, following this appalling epidemic, the one positive outcome has been the outstanding way in which the relevant agencies have co-operated? I refer to MAFF, the NFU, veterinary services and people from abroad who have come to lend their support. It has been an appalling situation but people have dealt with it in the best possible way.

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I agree that the vast majority or organisations and individuals have behaved in a highly responsible fashion. I add my tribute in particular to the Chief Veterinary Officer and his staff, who have behaved with the utmost professionalism. Last week we cancelled all leave for the state veterinary service, which was not necessary--we did not have to make them come in because it was difficult to stop them coming in.

Business of the House: Debates this Day

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Tanlaw set down for today shall be limited to one-and-a-half hours and that in the name of the Lord St John of Bletso to three-and-a-half hours.--(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Economic Affairs: Select Committee

Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider economic affairs;
	That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the committee:
	L. Barnett, L. Burns, L. Cuckney, L. Elder, B. Hogg, L. Newby, L. Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, B. O'Cathain, L. Paul, L. Peston (Chairman), L. Roll of Ipsden, L. Vinson;
	That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
	That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place;
	That the committee have leave to report from time to time.--(Lord Tordoff.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Stem Cell Research: Select Committee

Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider and report on the issues connected with human cloning and stem cell research arising from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Research Purposes) Regulations 2000;
	That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the committee:
	E. Carnarvon, B. Cumberlege, L. Dahrendorf, L. Donoughue, B. McIntosh of Hudnall, B. Northover, B. O'Neill of Bengarve, Bp. Oxford (Chairman), B. Perry of Southwark, B. Platt of Writtle, B. Warwick of Undercliffe;
	That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
	That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place.--(Lord Tordoff.)

Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, I rise to ask the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, to think again about this matter. This House and the other place have stressed the importance of impartiality in chairmen. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford has made it very plain that he is extremely partial in this very sensitive matter. Has the noble Lord received letters today from vicars and others dissociating their section of the Church of England from those views on stem cell research? Will the noble Lord agree that, like justice, impartiality must not only be done but be seen to be done?

The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, in the past few years my noble friend the Bishop of Oxford has been asked by the Archbishops to chair the Church's Social Responsibility Committee and been entrusted with that task. The task of that committee is to advise the Church on these kinds of issues. In dealing with these matters I can think of no one on the Bishops' Benches with a better grasp of the complexities of both the moral and technical questions. He has the full confidence of these Benches, and I hope that that confidence is shared by the House.

Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate. I am slightly shocked that anyone should consider that a man of the integrity of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford is incapable of chairing a Select Committee of this House other than impartially. One cannot always have chairmen of Select Committees who have no views at all. Speaking as one who chairs a Select Committee of this House and who holds strong views, I hope it is not thought that I handle that committee with partiality. I hope that the noble Baroness is prepared to withdraw her remarks.

Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, perhaps the Deputy Chairman of Committees will clarify one matter. When the House recently set up the Joint Committee on Human Rights the chairperson was not chosen until the committee met for the first time. Why is it a tradition of this House that chairpersons should be nominated by a group other than that which meets to conduct the business?

Lord Tordoff: My Lords, the short answer is that it is a Joint Committee of both Houses and therefore the chairman must be nominated by that committee.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Near Earth Objects

Lord Tanlaw: rose to call attention to the report of the Task Force on Potentially Hazardous Near Earth Objects; and to move for Papers.
	My Lords, I start by declaring an interest in the subject of near earth objects as founder and chairman of the all-party Astronomy and Space Environment Group. Some noble Lords may ask themselves why it is necessary to debate the threat created by the low probability, high consequence hazard of near earth objects now rather than later. I believe that it is necessary because of the long lead time required for prophylactic action to be taken after recognition of the problem by government. That view is based on my own experiences of trying to bring the threat of greenhouse gases to your Lordships' attention a quarter of a century ago.
	It appears that governments require a long gestation period of procrastination before they can identify any problem connected with the improvement of terrestrial or near space environment, and even longer when they take a decision to act upon it which might require government funding. Of course there are exceptions. I congratulate the Minister on, first, having the political courage to lift potentially hazardous near earth objects above what has sometimes been referred to as the "giggle barrier", for I believe that it has been this lack of political credibility which has delayed any serious debate on both sides of the Atlantic. Secondly, the Minister for Science should be able to take his place with honour among the distinguished visionaries, scientists, knights, poets and peers listed on page 36 of the report for having set up the task force in the first place. I add only the name of Lembit O£pik, the honourable Member for Montgomeryshire, who has done so much to prepare the ground for the report.
	The professional team selected by the Minister, which was headed by Dr Harry Atkinson, ably supported by Sir Crispin Tickell and Professor David Williams, has justly received international acclaim for the quality of its report. It is a world first and has undoubtedly established the United Kingdom as an intellectual and scientific leader in the field of near earth objects. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that this advantage will not be lost through lack of follow-up by his Government.
	I have instigated this debate in the hope that the good work undertaken by the task force will be financed on a permanent basis by the Government. Does the noble Lord agree that the establishment of a British centre for near earth objects at the Armagh Observatory would be a good starting point? Will the Minister also give a firm indication that there will be specific funding to implement recommendations 13 and 14 contained in the report; in other words, can the costs of research and telescopic hardware be met without deducting funds from other areas of astronomical research in other government departments, in particular PPARC which to date has been so supportive of all those involved with near earth objects?
	Does the Minister agree that the British National Space Centre may be geared up to hold and distribute special funds for this purpose? Does the noble Lord also agree that that may play a more positive role than that of the inter-departmental post office which seems to be its present function?
	Before I look at the Government's response to the report in more detail, it may be worth asking: what are hazardous near earth objects which were the subject of investigation by the task force? According to the report, they are asteroids and long and short-term comets which fulfil the role of Alpha and Omega, as described by St John the Divine in his apocalyptic vision in the Book of Revelations. They are the seeds of Armageddon which procreate the chemistry for all carbon-based life in the universe, of which we are but a small part. In its introduction on page 9 of the report the task force goes on to say this about them:
	"As a species humans would not now exist without them. On the one hand we can rejoice in them; on the other we can fear for our future".
	We humans have been riding as passengers for the past million years aboard the planetary vehicle we call Earth which is hurtling round the sun on a darkened highway we call the ecliptic at 67,000 miles an hour. Up until now we have not been able to observe clearly all the hazardous objects that are around us which are 3 billion year-old left-overs from the planetary builders' yard. Therefore, we have not worried about them.
	To continue with the "vehicle" analogy, we are only just beginning to find out how the lights work. We can now see for the first time the very real dangers that lie ahead. Unfortunately, we cannot stop the world and get off, nor can we manoeuvre it out of harm's way. As a result, in the past there has been impact damage to the Earth, which is shown on pages 10, 18 and 19 of the report, and also to our planetary neighbours such as the moon and Mars, which we can see with a good pair of binoculars.
	We have witnessed the catastrophic impact of the Shoemaker-Levy comet on Jupiter, and astronomers are beginning to observe with the new family of powerful telescopes that there are comets and planets circling around alien suns. I believe that there is now positive evidence of asteroid material in 85 per cent of all visible stars.
	The inter-planetary debris of asteroids and short and long-term comets comes in all shapes and sizes. Near earth objects can be solid pieces of iron or loosely bound snowballs of ice and stone, and the huge numbers observed, even without a detailed survey which the task force has proposed, and the Government have agreed to as a first priority, are approximately as follows. There are 150 million near earth objects in the 10 to 100 metre category; 300,000 in the 100 to 500 metre category; 10,000 in the 500 to 1 kilometre category; and 1,500 which are 1 kilometre or larger. Duncan Steel's diagrams on pages 9 and 10, which are copied from his excellent book Target Earth that is available in the Library, indicate the complexity of their orbits around the earth.
	The Government's website shows approximately 50 asteroids averaging 50 metres in diameter which will near miss the earth during 2001. Fortunately, only a small percentage of all near earth objects are deemed hazardous, and they are the only ones which are on a direct collision course with earth. If they are accurately logged usually they can be identified many years before eventual impact.
	If we look at the table on page 16, we can expect a 75 metre asteroid to impact every 1,000 years, with an explosive yield 10 times the power of the hydrogen device detonated on Bikini Atoll. An asteroid in that category--similar to the Tunguska event in 1908--will destroy cities the size of London, Moscow or Washington. If noble Lords consider for a moment the total amount of potentially hazardous material in near earth orbit, they will realise that it cannot be a question of "if" but "when" a near earth object finally impacts on the earth's surface. We must hope that until there is a satisfactory system of mitigation or defence the object concerned will not be too big.
	I believe that the deployment of an effective shield against cometary and asteroid impact must constitute the rite of passage for all intelligent life, regardless of where it may exist in the universe. Will the Minister confirm that this was perhaps the main reason and justification for his preparation of the task force report on hazardous near earth objects?
	I am rather disappointed in the Government's initial response to the practical possibilities of mitigating the results of impact and the deflection of an incoming object. Surely the Home Office is not fully equipped to deal with either of these problems without assistance from the Ministry of Defence. No doubt plans for the Anderson shelter are still available for public distribution, but I ask the Minister whether they are enough to cope with the scale of the catastrophe anticipated of a major impact. As for deflection, I can see that it is theoretically possible after the remarkable controlled contact by the NEAR- Shoemaker satellite with the asteroid Eros. But will not effective deflection entail the use of nuclear weaponry? Will the technology not be open to misuse by any nation with asteroid modification capabilities, which wishes to deflect an object deliberately onto a terrestrial target?
	This grim scenario has been predicted by Carl Sagan in his letter to Nature and in the "faction" novel Nemesis written by the astronomer Bill Napier. Both items are available in the Library, as are the Chapman/Morrison tables on risk assessment and other related papers.
	If asteroids are going to be used as weapons one day in the not too distant future, then the risk assessment of dying from a middle range asteroid must greatly increase from one in 20,000 to about one in 5,000. The death probability as a result of flood or natural catastrophe is rated in the Chapman/Morrison chart as one in 30,000--the same as flying in an aeroplane. The exceptionally heavy rainfall this year may have at last fired the Prime Minister's enthusiasm to mitigate the greenhouse effects on a world-wide basis. He has apparently agreed to apply £100 million for research on renewable energy resources in order to improve on this statistic. Does the Minister not agree that only a fraction of this sum would be required to implement all the 14 recommendations of the task force?
	Therefore, the question I must ask the Minister is this. Why is the alleviation of the risk of comet or asteroid impact not yet recognised by the Government as a necessary expenditure as part of the precautionary principle, which was outlined in the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology papers in 1996 and which is supported by the Prime Minister? Do the Government not have an obligation to future generations to look beyond the event horizon of the next general election and to prepare to mitigate future risks from near space?
	I understand that the National Trust spends on average £175 million a year on the preservation of our structural heritage, while various government heritage agencies may spend about five times that amount in other works of preservation. Can the Minister therefore say why some of these funds cannot be diverted from the heritage business into, say, the British National Space Centre until an adequate mitigation system is in place to reduce future risks from near earth objects? Alternatively, can he not see a way of persuading the private sector to play some part in financing the essential new British three-metre telescopes, which will be required for the major task of cataloguing the whole of the near earth object spectrum?
	The principle of private sector participation has already been established by the Beagle MarsLander. Does the noble Lord not agree that many individuals, as opposed to commercial companies, might be prepared to pay to name a harmless near earth object, out of the 150 million, as a memento for their grandchildren or in memory of someone they have loved? If there is no money from the Government, science will have to find a way, without diluting the science of an issue, to come to terms with the private sector on an agreed way of providing finance. Can the Minister explain why governments seem quite prepared to fund the preservation of our civilised past and yet are unwilling to pay for the protection of the future of our civilisation?
	I do not know why, but whenever the subject of fire and brimstone is raised, as I have raised it today, the awful fate of the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah comes to mind. When it does, I take the somewhat heretical view that they succumbed from the impact of near earth objects, not because of their sinful deeds but because they failed to heed the advice given to them by the watchmen at the gates. The watchmen have made their report to your Lordships. We ignore their advice at our peril. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.

Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, for introducing this debate on near earth objects, one of the major physical dangers affecting the whole world, including, of course, the UK. Dealing with this danger, as with the other dangers--notably climate change, coastal erosion, natural disasters, the disposal of nuclear wastes and solar influences on the atmosphere--requires scientific research and monitoring, communication with the public and then definite actions to reduce or prevent the danger. If and when such events occur, actions are necessary to mitigate their effects and to recover from them afterwards.
	I should like to make a few suggestions about the responses to the specific threat of near earth objects in the light of Dr Atkinson's excellent working party report and of the highly constructive government response. I have to declare a small interest in that I was consulted on one part of the report. I shall conclude by commenting on the broader issue of how the UK and Europe should each have organisations for systematic co-ordination and monitoring of major risks.
	From the scientific report, it is clear that the most likely danger is from meteors similar to the Siberian 1908 meteor, with diameters of the order of 100 metres, impacting the atmosphere at about 30,000 miles per hour--20 times the speed of Concorde. Unlike earthquakes, tsunamis or surprise nuclear attacks, such events can be predicted by close monitoring--for at least one year and probably more before the arrival. That is because the earth is not in the asteroid belt, which some Peers of a certain age will remember caused great problems to Dan Dare and Digby, the intrepid space explorers depicted in the Eagle comic of the 1950s--not mentioned in the report, which was perhaps written by younger people. Such asteroid impacts are rare events, as the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, explained to us.
	The astronomers who worked on the report--among whom was my colleague, Professor David Williams of University College, to whom I am grateful for something of a briefing--quite rightly emphasised the need for close monitoring of near earth objects and for studies of their movement and composition. I would strongly recommend that, as with weather forecasts, a systematic procedure is introduced for assessing the accuracy of near earth object trajectories and near misses. Noble Lords will recall that General Eisenhower, before relying on weather forecasts for D-day, wanted to have an assessment of their accuracy for a few months beforehand. These forecasts should be quantified and made public. Accurate predictions will be the first step in planning the direct preventive action to be taken.
	In the future, the report emphasises that the techniques may be considerably more sophisticated and safer than changing the trajectories of the objects by massive explosions on their surface. The impact of a significant meteor on land causes blast waves, electromagnetic disturbances and eruptions of the earth. These short-term effects, as well as longer-term climatic effects, as we saw with the decline of the dinosaurs, could be more devastating than the largest nuclear bomb explosions. Therefore, I urge the Government to follow the suggestion on page 27 of the report, which, curiously, did not appear in the recommendations, and involve the Ministry of Defence's Aldermaston Atomic Weapons Establishment and the Met Office to apply their enormous computational physics capability to provide quantitative data for the consequences of different scenarios, much as they did for nuclear winter in the 1980s.
	However, the report indicates that the most likely danger to the UK and Europe is an impact in the ocean, which would give rise to a huge tidal wave. Geologists and natural disaster experts have pointed out that this would be similar to the kind of waves triggered by sudden movements of the seabed, or mountain movements in the Caribbean or the Canary Islands. Again, the enormous capability of computational prediction in which NERC and university oceanographic institutes would have to become involved, could provide the relevant damage data which European emergency committees would need when considering the scenarios. However, one hopes that they would not rely on computer-generated data at the last minute.
	From my experience of running a government agency and working with government departments, including the British National Space Centre--which has been the recipient of hard criticism; to that end, I do not entirely accept the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, that it is merely a postbox--I believe that the organisational response of the Government is correct, given the present arrangements in the UK and Europe. The problems associated with near earth objects are to be directed by the BNSC, with a strong emphasis on collaboration with the European Space Agency. I hope that the Minister and the Government Chief Scientist will ensure that BNSC plays a major role both in research and in working with UK industry in the task of constructing small satellites and telescopes.
	As scientific understanding matures and is better communicated, BNSC should also work with the insurance industry to enable organisations and even entire countries to take out insurance against these risks. This, I believe, would be the most specific involvement on the part of the private sector. It is worth pointing out that people have taken out insurance policies within a few hours of a hurricane arriving in their vicinity. One can imagine what might happen if a warning of a near earth object was issued.
	In conclusion, I should emphasise that this danger highlights the need for a more systematic and permanent arrangement for the UK Government and Europe to monitor and co-ordinate activities to tackle major physical dangers and to be able to do so over long periods which may last for hundreds of years. In the United States, the substantial policy arm of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration deals with these matters, as well as an involvement by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. However, in the UK many small research and operational agencies, along with advisory bodies such as the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution and the Commission on Sustainable Development, need to co-ordinate their efforts. The Government Chief Scientist works extremely hard, but no technical co-ordination agency has been set up to prioritise and keep under review all these major dangers. Such a body would be preferable to another ad hoc unit, as has been advocated in the report and which appears to be advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw.
	Eventually, Europe should set up a major risks agency to match the United States equivalent. I am not at all sure--the Government have implied this as well--that this should be passed over to a committee of the OECD. I believe that we need to consider a new way forward.
	I shall conclude by asking the Government whether they will suggest to the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering that they should look into the general question. Noble Lords in this House would then have an opportunity to review their deliberations in the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee.

Lord Razzall: My Lords, the irony of the timing of this debate will not be lost on those noble Lords who have always accepted the adage coined by Harold Wilson; namely, that a week is a long time in politics. As we debate issues that should be considered in the extreme long term, in another place Members are debating a Budget that will have a shelf life of a year or perhaps two at the most. Clearly, the matter of near earth objects and their effects is a fundamentally long-term issue. Those noble Lords who have read the report of the task force will have seen that the implications of our debate range in time from a collision millions of years ago which resulted in the elimination of the dinosaurs to an unknown future scenario. On page 16, a table indicates that, if an object 16 kilometres in diameter were to hit us, it would,
	"threaten[s] survival of all advanced life forms".
	Clearly, this matter is serious. The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, mentioned that in certain quarters the threat is regarded as something of "a giggle". However, it is far more important than that and is worthy of significant debate.
	Noble Lords will agree, first, that thanks are due to the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, for raising this issue. Secondly, I thought that he was extremely gracious when he commended my colleague in another place, Lembit Opik, who has been instrumental in bringing this matter to the attention of the Government. Thirdly, many thanks are due to the Minister for having taken on board the implications of these issues and for having taken seriously the recommendations now being put forward by the Government.
	I shall take up the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, that we should add a little drama to the matter by attributing names to near earth objects. I can see that an object called an "Opik" would have a certain Estonian resonance. I am not so certain about a "Tanlaw", but to call a near earth object a "Sainsbury" would give a new meaning to the name among our shoppers.
	The Government have made it clear that there has been a significant change in their thinking on near earth objects., They have accepted, first, that there is a recognised threat and, secondly, that surveys, follow-up orbit and spectroscopic programmes, along with greater scientific understanding, have a significant role to play in the developing international programme. They have also indicated that, later in the year, a second and more detailed announcement will be made regarding progress in this area.
	I hope that the Minister will not think that I am seeking to remove any of the congratulations that I know he deserves if I now probe him on a number of points that we feel should be reflected in any subsequent statements and announcements. The key recommendation of the task force is that an advanced 3 metre class survey telescope should be put in place as quickly as possible. It will need to be a first-class, state-of-the-art instrument with a long competitive life because it will be fundamental to the exercise of forecasting. When we next debate this issue, we shall want to know that the Government have made significant progress in securing that telescope, which I understand is being contemplated on an international basis. Such progress will be absolutely vital.
	As regards the government responses to the recommendations, I shall need to introduce a slight carping note into my comments. First, their response to recommendation 7, that the operation of the Minor Planet Survey should be put on a "robust international footing", will cause any noble Lord a degree of concern. I hope that the Minister will be able to use the opportunity of our debate today to give further assurances on that issue.
	Potentially worrying too is the Government's response to recommendation 9, which states that,
	"the Government, with other governments, set in hand studies to look into the practical possibilities of mitigating the results of impact and deflecting incoming objects".
	That is obviously bureaucratic-speak for, "What are the Government going to do to prevent us being obliterated by near earth objects?" Anyone reading the Government's response would consider it to be also in bureaucratic-speak and somewhat luke warm. I am not suggesting that noble Lords should embark immediately on interplanetary travel to avoid the impact. This is a serious matter and I hope that when the Government report again a more detailed response will be given on what exactly will happen in this area.
	Recommendation 12, which relates to the British National Space Centre, has come in for a certain amount of criticism. I am conscious of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, who indicated that he regarded the criticisms of the BNSC as not satisfactory. However, concern has been expressed about the BNSC. The recommendation is that there should be a government department with responsibility for NEOs. However, the BNSC is not, in essence, a government department but an amalgam of different entities within government, staffed by people who are often seconded from elsewhere. The concern is that the BNSC would not be an adequate sponsoring department.
	I am sure that noble Lords would be absolutely delighted if the view was taken that the Minister and his department should take on this responsibility in response to the recommendation of the task force, using obviously the BNSC. People are always nervous when organisations that have representations from across Whitehall and elsewhere are given responsibility for a particular issue. Joined-up government does not always remain joined-up, or it cracks, and we should be grateful for assurances from the Minister on that point.
	My final point is that the task force strongly recommended that a UK near earth object centre should be set up. This centre should be independent of any government organisation and in a position to assist the Government in carrying out the programme outlined in the report. Close observers of this issue are concerned that that recommendation is not being followed through by the Government. I hope that when the Minister replies he will respond to that point, at least by saying that, when he next reports to the House later in the year, that issue will have been dealt with.
	Having made what might appear to the Minister to be carping criticisms, I return to the original congratulations which I know everyone in the House and elsewhere feel are due to the Minister for taking on board this issue. He has taken it seriously and has come forward with some interesting and radical proposals.

Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, in 1979, a large meteorite capable of wiping out most of life on earth was detected on a direct collision course with earth. Disaster was averted by the collaboration of the Americans and the Soviet Union who, in a co-ordinated effort, fired salvoes of atomic rockets at the object. In 1998, a similar object was detected and broken up and the pieces deflected as a result of the bravery of a crew of oil drillers who were landed on it by space shuttle and planted a hydrogen bomb deep under the surface.
	In case any of your Lordships are wondering how you failed to read reports in the press of these momentous--I nearly said earth-shattering--events, perhaps I may tell you that they were the plots of two science fiction films, respectively "Meteor" and "Armageddon". There was another, more recent film, "Deep Impact", which I would rather not discuss as in that film, despite every international effort, the earth was destroyed.
	But we are not discussing some fanciful piece of science fiction hokum; we are talking about what the Minister of Science described as "an extremely remote risk" but one which "we cannot ignore". How remote is, of course, a matter of degree. We were told by the Minister that,
	"we are talking about once every 100,000 years for a very serious incident".
	A mere 49,000 years ago a meteor left a crater in Arizona almost three-quarters of a mile wide, just like one on the moon. Not 100,000 years later but in 1908, during the lifetime of many people still living, including some distinguished, still active Members of your Lordships' House, an object only 60 metres--three cricket pitches--across exploded five miles up in the atmosphere and devastated 2,000 square kilometres of Siberian forest. A few seconds more of flight and it could have exploded over Britain.
	On 7th April 1990, a house in Holland was demolished by a small object, and on 9th October 1992 a meteorite weighing just 26 pounds went right through the rear of a parked car, leaving a crater in the driveway. Indeed, the definition of a "potentially dangerous object" is one whose orbit comes within 46 million miles of earth and is at least 160 yards in diameter. As recently as 10th August 1998, an asteroid two miles wide passed within six hours of the earth. That is very close in space terms.
	The report lists 12 objects, ranging in size from 6 metres to 1,000 metres, that have come within 70,000 to 500,000 miles of the earth since 1989. So far, 258 potentially dangerous objects have been discovered. I stress "so far" because the survey is in an early stage and is still continuing.
	Should your Lordships want to see something which I regard as frightening, I suggest that you look at the diagram on page 9 of the report and at the almost solid line of orbits which is shown in yellow. That shows 800 asteroids which cross the earth's orbit and which are potentially dangerous.
	Every year 50,000 tonnes of space rock hit the earth. That is about 5.75 tonnes every hour. Of course, we are assured that most of it is made up of space dust and small meteorites which burn up in the atmosphere. Just as well. The thought of being struck by half a pea travelling at 40,000 miles an hour is not something that anyone would wish to contemplate.
	Indeed, after I read the report and the Government's response, I wondered how I had got myself involved in this debate, but I do thank the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, for introducing it and for allowing me to learn so much about this subject. However, before I read the material, and not being a fan of science fiction films, I was blissfully ignorant of what the Minister reassuringly described as "an extremely remote risk". Now I could go to bed worrying in case a meteor will wipe out life on earth as we know it.
	Before I leave the subject of risk, which has been eloquently described in the report, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the photographs on page 11 of the report of the asteroid Eros. It is more than 20 miles long and eight miles wide and is pitted with craters where other meteorites and asteroids have hit it, one of them leaving a crater three miles in diameter. Later photographs, taken by the spacecraft as it landed on Eros, showed the surface littered with boulders that have struck it over the past 4.5 billion years--and Eros is a comparatively small object in space; it is smaller than Greater London. We are lucky to have the earth's thick atmosphere to burn away or bounce back into space the material which lands on us every minute.
	The Minister is to be congratulated on having taken note of the concerns of the honourable Member for Montgomeryshire, whose astronomer grandfather had an asteroid named after him, who raised this matter so well in an adjournment debate on 3rd March 2000. The Minister set up the task force, the comprehensive report of which we are debating today.
	The task force makes a series of 14 recommendations, but I need not take up your Lordships' time by repeating them. Largely it calls for a vastly extended network of observatories to monitor these near earth objects, entailing co-operation between international agencies and setting up those agencies. On the face of it, the Government's response is positive, at least as positive as the circumstances will permit. The Government will review how the United Kingdom telescope facilities can be used to identify potentially hazardous near earth objects; setting up a facility to provide information on near earth objects and getting the European Space Agency to convene a conference this year to discuss Europe's role; and getting the OECD to consider setting up an international discussion and action forum.
	I do not want to detract from the importance of the subject that we are discussing, nor in any way to denigrate the Government's response. However, what we are discussing is an admittedly highly remote possibility--a danger about which, in reality, there is probably not very much that we can do alone, though perhaps we can do a little more with international partners.
	I should like the Minister to tell us just how much money the Government will put into the project and what expectation there is that other countries will contribute their share, bearing in mind that we have shortages of funds for very urgent and real life daily problems in areas like the health service, education and crime prevention. Which will be the priority? How will one balance out with another?
	The report says that the USA is doing more about NEOs than the rest of the world put together. This is, of course, due to the almost limitless funding that Congress is prepared to give to the space programme, coupled with the military benefits obtainable from its satellites. I suspect that it will not be too long before someone realises that the revived Star Wars project might also have the civilian use of blasting meteorites out of the sky, as well as hostile missiles.
	There is, as I read the Government's response, no promise of immediate money, or new money, for research and observation for early warning of these NEOs. I do not say this in any critical sense, because I do not actually see what the Government could do on their own without the support, both financial and technical, of international partners, which is what recommendation I urged them to seek. The Government do indeed promise discussions with various bodies, including exploring the plans of the European Space Agency and co-operating with NASA.
	The Government's response does in general terms accept the recommendations of the report, but these are about observation of and sharing information about NEOs. Having spotted them, what is to be done about them? I am glad to see that the Government intend to discuss the matter at the forthcoming meeting of the Inter-Agency Debris Coordination Committee steering group--rather a long title--because if the clutter produced when the solar system came into existence is going to be a perpetual danger, our skies are also full of dangerous bits and pieces left over from space exploration. Not the least is what happens when the Russian Soyuz weighing a couple of hundred tonnes soon falls to earth. The Russians say that they will be able to control it, and I should like to believe them, as I am sure is the case with all noble Lords. But I still remember when one of their rockets went out of control in the 1980s: it fell to earth we knew not where, until it was tracked, fortunately, to the Australian desert.
	I am also glad to see that the report will be discussed by the UN Scientific and Technical Sub-Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space. Clearly the inhibition of the use of atomic missiles in space will have to be reviewed. The report very briefly discusses the possibility of mitigating the consequences of an impact from a near earth object, as the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, mentioned. Moving people from areas likely to be affected by a small object could save lives, but could not, I believe, prevent substantial damage.
	However, I question whether it will be possible to determine with any degree of accuracy where one of these things is going to land before it is too late for anyone to do anything about it. Blowing it up, as dramatically shown in the films that I mentioned earlier, is said to be likely to cause even greater damage because of the proliferation of the bits that will fly around and hit the earth. There is a suggestion of nudging the meteor out of its dangerous orbit. I am not clear how a small space craft would be able to nudge a large object travelling at tens of thousands of miles an hour without suffering fatal damage itself at the first contact. I say that as an aside, following the experience of my husband a couple of weeks ago. He made a very slight and very low speed contact with our garage wall, causing the most severe damage to the aerodynamics of his front wing but none at all to the wall!
	The Government say that the United Kingdom,
	"has a great deal to bring to an international approach to the problem".
	They point out our strong record as a leader in the field of astronomy, involvement in international observatories and our technical expertise in telescope design and construction, in small satellite technology and in what are called "charged-coupled devices" (or CCDs), which can detect both visible and infra-red light and produce images that can be seen on a screen.
	The world has now been alerted to a danger that was perhaps, until quite recently, not appreciated. I am sure that the Minister will tell us that, having regard to our national expertise, as just mentioned, the fact that the report is the first comprehensive review of the subject and the excellent reception that the report has already received internationally will place us in an influential position in the field.
	In its history, Britain--Great Britain--has enjoyed a leading place in science and scientific research. I hope that it will do so in this case, for it may have major implications for the future of the whole human race and, indeed, for planet earth itself.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I should like to begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, on securing this debate on the work of the Task Force on Potentially Hazardous Near Earth Objects. While the chances of a major incident are very remote, this is a serious issue and one where the UK, with our considerable expertise, should give an international lead.
	The noble Lord takes a close interest in these matters as chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Astronomy and Space Environment Group. He first brought the issue to the attention of your Lordships' House in a Question that he tabled in June 1999. In the subsequent discussion, I emphasised the importance of taking this topic forward on an international basis. The issue was also brought to Parliament's attention in another place by Lembit Opik MP in March 1999. Since then, Mr Opik has continued to work with his characteristic enthusiasm to bring the topic into the mainstream. I should reiterate the point already made by the noble Baroness that there is already an asteroid called "The Opik", which I believe was named after his grandfather, from whom he derives his interest. I believe that a "Razzall", though not a "Sainsbury", would be a very attractive name for an asteroid.
	The Government's international approach to the issue was evinced by the leading role played by the UK in the resolution of the Vienna Declaration on Space and Human Development. This was agreed at a special meeting of the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space in July 1999. The resolution urged that action should be taken to improve the international co-ordination of activities related to near earth objects, harmonising world efforts directed at identification and follow-up and orbit prediction.
	In view of the importance attached to the issue by the Government and others, I announced on 4th January 2000 the setting up of a Task Force on Potentially Hazardous Near Earth Objects. The task force was charged with confirming the nature of the hazard and potential levels of risk, identifying the current contribution to international efforts and advising the Government on what further action to take in the light of them. The task force, consisting of Sir Crispin Tickell and Professor David Williams, under the distinguished chairmanship of Dr Harry Atkinson, reported on 18th September 2000. I believe that the standard and depth of the discussion we have just heard is a reflection of the quality of the report of the task force.
	It is only over the past decade that the significance of near earth objects in our earth's history has begun to be understood. Since its formation, our world has been bombarded by comets and asteroids, ranging in size from those that are smaller than pebbles to lumps of rock measuring kilometres across. Hundreds of tonnes of space dust enter our atmosphere on a daily basis. The larger pieces of grit can be seen burning up in our atmosphere as spectacular shooting stars. Indeed, this is what happens to by far the greater proportion of the asteroids that encounter the earth--they burn up harmlessly, as the noble Baroness rightly pointed out, in our atmosphere. We have a defence against most asteroids provided for us by nature.
	So what is the risk of a major incident? The long-term risk of dying as a consequence of a near earth object impact is estimated at around one in 25,000 per person. As a crude statistical average, this amounts to about the same level of risk as that of dying in a plane crash. However, it is worth remembering that that risk is of a very different nature to those that are more familiar. In the case of comets and asteroids we are talking about very infrequent events involving huge numbers of people. Plane crashes are, tragically, a relatively--I stress the word "relatively"--frequent occurrence, with, by comparison, a relatively small number of fatalities. There are, in fact, no confirmed instances in recent history of death by an asteroid or meteor impact, save for an unlucky dog in North Africa in 1911.
	There is, however, a considerable amount of evidence about past incidents that had a major effect and which, had they occurred at the present time, would have resulted in a huge number of fatalities. Because of the nature of this risk, it is difficult to make a case for large extra funds to be made available for this area. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, that I find it hard to see how one could obtain private funds for this field. I can envisage only two circumstances in that regard: a situation where there is no disaster and therefore the publicity value is rather small and a disaster situation when people may not want a lot of publicity for their products. Therefore, I do not think we can look to private funds, which even in the case of Beagle 2 have not been large.
	My role as Minister for Science is to seek a balance between the overreaction which could be induced by the thought of "global killer" asteroids and any complacency arising from the rarity of such impacts. The level of threat which I have just described is very much an estimate. We do not know for certain how many objects are out there. Of those that have been discovered, not all the orbits are known accurately. We cannot be sure of the frequency with which they will hit us. Without a better understanding of the nature and level of the threat, any attempt to devise a measured response will be hampered by the paucity of our knowledge.
	However, what we can be certain of is that if an asteroid or comet is heading towards us, it is essential that we know as soon as possible so as to assess its likely effects and the range of possible options in response. That is why the whole question of monitoring is of the utmost importance. The question was raised as to what the response would be and whether there would be a response. There certainly could be sensible responses. It might, for instance, be feasible in the case of a small asteroid or comet, perhaps impacting into a distant ocean, to move people away from the area likely to be affected, for example, by tidal waves. In the case of a larger potential impact we would need to consider deflection. I say in answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, about deflection, that useful work relevant to these circumstances is already under way. The US near Shoemaker mission to Eros recently dramatically demonstrated the capability to rendezvous with, and land on, an asteroid. Data from that mission suggest that Eros has a rather loose structure, which is obviously relevant to any consideration of how to push it to one side.
	Future missions such as the US Deep Impact Project will determine the composition of the comet by firing a probe at it to see what flies up from the large crater on its surface. This test will also show the possibilities for deflection. I think, however, it is well to remember in this context the comments of the science fiction writer, Carl Sagan, who acknowledged in a letter to the journal Nature that the development of asteroid deflection technology at this time would be premature and that, in the light of well established human frailty and fallibility, it may introduce a new category of danger that dwarfs that posed by near earth objects themselves. It is worth remembering that that would be a difficult matter to assess.
	One of the principal conclusions of the report of the Task Force on Potentially Hazardous Near Earth Objects is that we need to know more about such matters. I very much agree. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, that the key issue is monitoring and making certain that the monitoring is accurate. I am not sure that at this point we need to do any more work on the consequences of such events as I think that they would be disastrous in almost all circumstances.
	The Government's response to the task force's report was published on 24th February and a variety of work is now being taken forward in this area. Several of the task force's recommendations concerned adapting telescope facilities to which the UK has access to find, track and characterise near earth objects. The Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council has undertaken to analyse costed options for how these recommendations could best be implemented.
	In particular, the decision announced by the Secretary of State on 21st November 2000 that the UK intends to join the European Southern Observatory will both allow the UK access to a variety of telescopes in the southern hemisphere and free up existing facilities for new uses. I look forward very much to the completion of the PPARC's report later this year.
	I say in answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, that we have no extra funds for these activities. They will have to compete with the activities which we already undertake in the field of space and astronomy. It is worth making the point that we spend considerable sums on astronomy. In that context it seems not inappropriate to direct a modest amount to determine whether any asteroid or comet could endanger us.
	My reference to the European Southern Observatory leads me on to the importance of the wider astronomical and international community in this issue. If any issue could be said to be truly global, it is the threat to the earth from near earth objects. An asteroid does not discriminate in its choice of landing site and all countries are in this together. I am therefore convinced that an international approach to this problem is essential. We all need to play our part. However, I believe that the UK, by capitalising on the favourable international reception of the task force's report, can play a leading role in encouraging other nations' and organisations' involvement in combating this threat.
	Certainly the task force's report has stimulated activity within Europe. The European Space Agency has undertaken to convene a meeting to discuss a common European approach to the near earth objects issue. It has specified the capabilities of two future space missions, which will include the ability to discover and track potentially hazardous asteroids. The European Science Foundation and the European Southern Observatory are keen to contribute to this discussion. By the end of this year I hope to see a plan in place as to how Europe can best contribute to international efforts in this area.
	Here in the UK we shall also be setting up improved arrangements to deal with near earth objects. As recommended by the task force, a single government department will take the lead in near earth object policy. The British National Space Centre has considerable expertise in this area and a partnership structure bringing together all other interested parties within government. I therefore believe that it is appropriate for it to take the role as lead unit within government on this topic. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, that the British National Space Centre is just a post-box. In fact, it is a very effective body which brings together the many bodies which have an interest in space. It is an early and extremely good example of joined-up government.
	I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, that I do not think that there is a need for co-ordination with other bodies; what we need is co-ordination of all the bodies which have an interest in space, which range from defence to the Meteorological Office and the astronomy community, so that we can deal effectively with this particular body. I say that because the disasters which have been mentioned are all of a different kind. We need to focus on the ones which particularly relate to space.
	I also concur with the view expressed by the task force that there is a need for some kind of facility to provide clear and balanced information to the public on near earth objects. Reporting of this issue can range from the alarmist to the derisive. To counter this the Government plan to set up a facility whose role would be to act as a showcase for the public on near earth object issues. The facility should provide a clear and objective introduction to the topic and in the process further the Government's wider aim of increasing public understanding of topical science issues. I do not think we should simply decide that one body, even if it is as distinguished as the one at Armagh, should do this job. It would be better to introduce competition. We should seek advice not from one body but from all the best experts around the world.
	The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, raised the question of funding of the Minor Planet Center. We welcome the work of that body in identifying and cataloguing near earth objects. We shall work with the European Space Agency, NASA and the International Astronomical Union to find a sound financial basis for the centre. Again, there has to be an international sharing of the costs.
	I stated earlier that I believe that my role as Minister for Science responsible for the near earth objects issue is to steer a course between overreaction to exaggerated threat and complacent inactivity. I believe that the Government's balanced response to the task force's comprehensive and objective report achieves that. The chairman of the task force, Dr Harry Atkinson, has said that he welcomes the general thrust of the Government's response to the recommendations of the task force which represents a major breakthrough for the UK. Lembit Opik, who has been instrumental in raising public and parliamentary awareness of the topic, is quoted as saying that the Government's response,
	"puts the UK at the forefront of asteroid avoidance. This is a very exciting time for British science in general, and British astronomy in particular".
	I can assure the House that the Government attach the highest importance to taking this work forward. The task force's report has already achieved one of its objectives by acting as a catalyst for international action. I look forward to the UK working with its international partners in combating the threat to our fragile planet of objects from space.

Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate; and I thank the Cross-Bench Members for their support in allowing me to introduce the debate. It has been an interesting discussion. It would not be correct to say that it has been wide ranging; it has been completely focused on the subject. The debate has been educational to me and, I am sure, helpful. We must address this subject. The Minister for Science has reassured us that the subject is in good hands. Many of us would hope that if, God forbid, a near earth object were on a collision course for earth we would have someone as sensible as the present Minister for Science to tell us how to avoid it. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Southern Africa

Lord St John of Bletso: rose to call attention to the current political, social and economic challenges facing Southern Africa; and to move for Papers.
	My Lords, I am delighted that so many noble Lords have put down their names to speak, and pleased that we have the privilege of an extra hour's debate. Too often in your Lordships' House, in debating subjects as broad as this we have limited time in which to share our views. Many of the challenges facing South Africa and Southern Africa were raised last month by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, in the debate on the government White Paper, Eliminating Global Poverty.
	I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, will speak. Almost a year ago to the week, the noble Baroness initiated a five-hour debate in this House calling attention not only to the opportunities but also the challenges in Africa. The themes discussed in that debate a year ago will, I am sure, arise in this debate. The noble Baroness has played a major role in promoting good governance and democracy in Southern Africa.
	Despite the many positive developments in Southern Africa over the past decade, the region has recently experienced a spate of extreme uncertainty: uncertainty politically, especially in Zimbabwe and Angola; and uncertainty socially and economically in the light of the HIV/AIDS pandemic which is spreading at an alarming rate in the region with potentially disastrous economic implications for growth. My particular knowledge is of South Africa where I have spent most of my life.
	While much progress has been made in promoting multiparty democracy in Southern Africa, the tactics of Robert Mugabe's mass intimidation of his opposition, in particular during the run-up to elections last year, with the farm invasions by so-called war veterans and general abuse of human rights in Zimbabwe, has resulted in the country facing one of its worst social and economic crises in its history, with food prices soaring, foreign exchange reserves desperately low and petrol stations running out of fuel. Businesses are going bankrupt in record numbers and rural unemployment is soaring as the land crisis deepens. Much of the arable ground lies unplanted following the occupation by the war veterans and the drought in the south, particularly during the past six months, has compounded the crisis. More recently, the bomb attacks on the Daily News, the expulsion of foreign journalists and attempts by the Zimbabwean Government to control the judiciary, have exacerbated the crisis.
	International action against Zimbabwe has been limited to criticism, withdrawal of aid and disengagement by international financial institutions. I hope that the United Nations, the Commonwealth and the EU can bring more pressure to bear on President Mugabe to end the human rights abuses and violations in that country. The knock-on effect in the region has been disastrous.
	The Southern African Development Community (SADC) in many respects has been rudderless and in desperate need of reform. Apart from the achievement in September of last year of establishing the Southern African Free Trade Zone, it has been unable to address the instability and conflicts in the region in a co-ordinated and coherent manner. Economic integration in Southern Africa has been a thorny issue for SADC. In its meeting last month there appeared to be a greater sense of urgency to push ahead with much needed reforms including a co-ordinated approach to tackle the HIV/AIDS pandemic. I hope that the SADC heads of government meeting in Zimbabwe on Friday will cement a clearer timetable for reform.
	Southern Africa has paid a bitter price as a result of the civil wars in the region. Despite the political compromise in Mozambique in 1992 and the fantastic revival in that country in those nine years, in Angola the hopes of a resolution to the civil war that has been raging for several decades have been frustrated by UNITA persistently evading complying with successive peace agreements. Sadly, it has been the civilians, in particular young children, who have been afflicted by casualties as a result of the many landmines which lie scattered around the country. It has become apparent that the lucrative spoils of diamond and mining concessions in Southern Africa and many other parts of Africa have impeded attempts to resolve the civil wars. Here I refer to the civil war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and in Angola. The civil war in the Congo has had a major destabilising effect on economic and political harmony in Southern Africa, putting the heads of government in Zambia, Namibia, Angola and Zimbabwe at odds with each other.
	We can only hope that the recent attempts at the Congo Summit to resolve this ongoing crisis can lead to a lasting resolve. Despite international efforts to resolve the civil wars and crises in Southern Africa, it is becoming increasingly important, I believe, for African governments to resolve African conflicts.
	Sadly, in Zambia concerns are rising about the MMD's attempts to entrench its power base with President Chiluba standing for a third term in office. The recent political hiccups, in particular the prison deaths in Mozambique and, more recently, the terrible floods that Mozambique has been experiencing have given rise to concern that what has been achieved over the past nine years could be eroded. The international relief agencies are to be commended on the speed with which they have come to the assistance of the flood victims in Mozambique this year. I just hope that the Cabora Bassa floodgates will not need to be opened. As in Angola, landmines have posed a significant humanitarian threat to the people of Mozambique. Here I commend Her Majesty's Government on their efforts in clearing many of the landmines, which have resulted in many areas of Mozambique now being declared safe.
	I would now like to touch briefly on current developments in South Africa. Nelson Mandela's great achievement was to ensure a peaceful transition from apartheid to democracy. His successor, President Thabo Mbeki, is very conscious that reconciliation cannot be maintained without a transformation in the country's economy which will enable it to meet the aspirations and the expectations of what I have referred to as the emancipated. He is a fervent believer in a strong state capable of intervening in the economy. I should not comment now on whether that is a good or a bad thing. He also expects the private sector to help create more economic equality and has introduced fairly draconian black empowerment legislation to move this forward.
	Over the medium term South Africa needs to increase its potential growth rate from an average of 3 per cent to 4 per cent in recent years to about 6 per cent at least in order to help address the problems of high unemployment which is around 36 per cent at the moment. President Mbeki has adopted a two-pronged approach, that being to declare his commitment to restoring democracy and stability in other African countries as well as stimulating economic growth and development in South Africa. He has been extremely successful with his Minister of Finance, Trevor Manuel, and the governor of the Reserve Bank, Tito Mbweni, in achieving that.
	South Africa clearly has an interest in promoting regional security, particularly in Zimbabwe, which is inflicting economic damage on all its neighbours both through the loss of trade and as a result of potential investors avoiding Southern Africa because of their concerns about regional stability and the ongoing effect of the brain drain from the region. There is no doubt that South Africa's tactic of silent diplomacy in respect of the Zimbabwe crisis has been to the detriment of both countries. I was encouraged, therefore, by the recent speech by Thabo Mbeki recently, which he gave to the Chamber of Commerce in South Africa. At long last he openly condemned the land grab in Zimbabwe which, in his words, "flouted" the rule of law. He assured delegates that a land grab would never be allowed in South Africa, which is certainly encouraging. Unfortunately, President Mbeki has resisted taking a more assertive line in putting pressure to bear on Robert Mugabe's regime to cease its repressive policies.
	I believe that it is essential for Southern Africa that a climate of open debate and the freedom of the press is promoted. I was alarmed by the overreaction of the South African Foreign Minister in January of this year to the comments made by Peter Hain on the South African handling of the Zimbabwe crisis. Thabo Mbeki has often tended to react with aggression to journalists who have criticised some of his policies. I hope that that is only a teething problem rather than an ongoing attempt by the president to silence his critics
	My time is rapidly coming to an end. The impact of HIV/AIDS on families is one of the greatest social catastrophies facing Southern Africa. This pandemic is fast reversing many of the social gains of the past 40 years and has deprived several Southern African countries of their most economically productive workforce. Attempts to change individual behaviour have proved ineffective, not helped by an attitude of fatalism on the part of individuals and institutions and the high cost of treating the symptoms. In Zimbabwe and Botswana, over 25 per cent of the adult population is infected by HIV and in South Africa over 4 million people are infected. AIDS is rapidly becoming a greater threat in rural areas than in cities, contrary to conventional wisdom. It is having a devasting effect on agricultural and rural development and poses enormous challenges to governments, NGOs and the international community. The disease is no longer just a health problem, it is becoming a major development issue.
	In conclusion, the challenge for Southern Africa is to create the right conditions for high economic growth and to improve the welfare of Africans living in severe poverty. I entirely agree with the sentiments of Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the United Nations in a recent article in the House Magazine. It is headed "Africa's Thirst for Democracy". He said,
	"What is striking is the fierce and ever-growing thirst for democracy that Africans have shown, their indomitable courage in defying oppressive regimes and their success in so many countries in insisting on accountable government".
	I fervently hope that the dream of an African renaissance will be a reality. I commend DfID'S pro-active approach to tackling the challenges facing Southern Africa. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.

Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, on raising this very important debate on the economic, political and social challenges facing Southern Africa. As the noble Lord said, problems abound in Zimbabwe. These are undoubtedly compounded by the actions of President Mugabe and the ZANU government. When we campaigned against Ian Smith in years gone by and against UDI in Southern Rhodesia it was no academic exercise. It was not an esoteric exercise about democracy with no real meaning; it was to ensure democracy in Zimbabwe: to make sure that the people there had a better future than what was intended under the old hardline Rhodesian white settlers. It certainly was not to replace dictatorship and corruption of whites by blacks. Abuse of power has to be condemned wherever it exists and whoever is responsible for perpetrating it. I doubt whether President Mugabe will listen even to the friends of Zimbabwe--and I count myself as one of them--when we tell him that the rule of law and order and the need for press freedom are essential.
	Friendly criticism should be accepted and not dismissed as British colonialism. It is ironic that his claims that we are interfering in the sovereign affairs of Zimbabwe echo the words of Vorster et al when they told us that we had no right to speak out against apartheid in South Africa.
	I support the idea that white power and privilege cannot be entrenched in Zimbabwe forever. There is an extremely strong case for land distribution. That has to be done in an orderly fashion and the landless peasants who get the land must be given the help and assistance necessary to keep the land productive. That is what it is all about. Simply taking the land and doing nothing with it is not a policy worth pursuing and is contrary to proper land use.
	We all agree that current events in Zimbabwe will not help the people of that country. The noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, and I have discussed what should be done about the situation on many occasions. Do we engage or do we disengage? Condemnation appears simply to feed the paranoia of President Mugabe that colonials still rule, even when that criticism comes from his friends. Failure to condemn makes us complicit in the wrongdoing. Francis Maude, the shadow Foreign Secretary, says that Zimbabwe should be suspended or expelled from the Commonwealth. That is a dilemma faced by the Movement for Democratic Change in Zimbabwe. Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the MDC, has shown immense courage in his outspoken criticism and his stand for freedom in Zimbabwe. However, while he has condemned the visit of President Mugabe to Belgium and France--there is a lot of merit in that argument--he has also called on the British Government to engage in dialogue and to keep our military training mission there. Which of those arguments should we listen to? It is very difficult to know what is best.
	We need to listen to the people of South Africa, as I have always done. At the moment they are saying that we should keep the lines of communication open. That is probably the right thing to do. There is still time for President Mugabe to change his mind and reverse his policy. I urge him to listen very carefully. If he will not listen to me--and why should he?--why will he not listen to Nelson Mandela, who has recently made a very powerful speech against corruption in Southern Africa? Nelson Mandela has argued strongly that it is necessary to accept criticism, because without criticism it is impossible to have good government. Perhaps we should remember that fact in this country as well. Nelson Mandela is one of the greatest Africans who ever lived, if not the greatest. When he speaks out in that way, surely President Mugabe ought to listen carefully and act accordingly.
	As has been said, there are many challenges facing the different countries in Southern Africa, but they all boil down to how to tackle poverty and underdevelopment. We cannot go through each country in the region in this debate, no matter how long it is, but I hope that in what will inevitably be a Cook's tour of the region, people will not feel that our concerns are diminished because we have not mentioned the specific problems of certain countries. I agree that Mozambique faces desperate problems. A year ago it had ravaging floods. Their effects were just beginning to be tackled with some reasonable chance of success when there were more floods. Perhaps the Minister will tell me whether I am right or the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, is right about the opening of the floodgates of the Cabora Bassa dam. I thought that the current problems were caused by opening the floodgates. One of us is right and the other is wrong. We shall find out which.
	On the other side of the continent, Angola is facing serious problems. There are signs of slow economic recovery and there is some optimism. However, as the noble Lord, Lord St John, has said, the problems remain with Jonas Savimbi and UNITA, who are still causing hardship and difficulties for a large number of the Angolan population. It is estimated that there are 3.8 million internally displaced persons in the country, almost half a million of whom fled their homes last year, when the UN was supposedly being very tough on UNITA. Sporadic attacks make it difficult for people to go back to their homes.
	Some alarm has been expressed recently that Jardo Muekalia, the UNITA representative in Washington, met with US Deputy Defense Secretary Bernard McConnell and three other officials a week after the Bush inauguration. That appeared to be a flagrant breach of the UN resolution on sanctions, but the Pentagon says that it is all right because it was an unofficial, informal meeting. We heard that time after time during the years when the United States financed and armed Savimbi against the legitimate government. Although the Angolan Government appears to be remarkably relaxed about what has happened, we need to be aware of developments. I ask my noble friend the Minister to assure us that the Government will keep a close eye on what is happening and will speak regularly with the American administration to keep them from slipping back into old habits.
	The noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, mentioned the AIDS pandemic. It is a huge problem. More than 4 million South Africans alone are affected. In this year's South African budget, an extra 16 billion rand has been allocated to tackle the problem. Concern has been expressed about some of President Mbeki's comments about AIDS and HIV, but a huge amount of money is being devoted to trying to deal with the problem. It is very sad that this week the big multinational chemical companies are taking the South African Government to court to prevent a sovereign government allowing parallel imports or generic medicines to be made in the country. We do that, so why should it not be done in South Africa?
	I welcome DfID's very important recent initiatives, pressing for more co-ordinated international action on TB, malaria and HIV/AIDS, especially from the G8 countries and the European Union. The department says that there must be a strong emphasis on prevention and support for health systems to help poor countries to deliver better care. Because of last-minute tidying up of my speech, I have not yet heard the details of what my right honourable friend the Chancellor, Gordon Brown, has said in another place this afternoon, but I understand that he has announced an initiative to help research and development to make cheaper drugs available to poor countries. Whatever the detail, that is an immensely important initiative, but cheap drugs on their own are not the answer. They have to be made available.
	A lot of nonsense is spoken by the big companies that they are losing sales because of parallel imports. The whole of sub-Saharan Africa represents only 1 per cent of the pharmaceutical companies' global sales. That is a minute proportion. There is no reason why they should not allow the much cheaper sale of drugs. I hope that we shall pursue that.
	I want to finish on a positive note. South Africa is making good progress. Its economy is improving. It had 3.1 per cent growth in GDP last year. Its inflation is down to 5.3 per cent from the double-digit rates of the 1980s and early 1990s. The budget deficit is now down to 2.4 per cent. Great strides are being made to tackle poverty and under-development. There has been an increase in employment from 9.3 million to 10.4 million--a 1.1 million increase in the number of jobs. That is all welcome. However, I agree that the budget forecast of 3.5 per cent growth over the next two to three years is nowhere near what is necessary. A growth rate of 6 per cent is needed to tackle the unemployment problem.
	I commend South Africa's capacity to change. It has transferred almost 1 million hectares of land to new black owners. That has been done with much sense and very little difficulty. The process has benefited nearly 38,000 households and it will continue. President Mbeki has made it clear that South Africa is a country of many different peoples and many different colours. He believes in and wishes to continue the policy of Nelson Mandela that South Africa should be an all-inclusive country, where every section of the population is welcome, is part of the country and deserves to improve its future. I hope that we can bring some sense of hope to the people, because hope is in desperately short supply for those who live in Southern Africa.

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to contribute to this debate, which was inaugurated by the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso. As he said, this debate comes almost a year after our debate on opportunities in Africa, but this time we are concentrating more on the southern parts of the continent.
	When I was preparing for this debate, I made a list of all of the Southern Africa Development Community--SADC-- countries and all of the key problems, and I started putting crosses where problems existed. I had hoped that I should have many blanks on my sheet but I did not, which is a sadness because, 12 months on, matters have declined.
	It would be easy to spend all of the 12 minutes that are allotted for my speech--I hope not to take up all of that time for the sake of other noble Lords--discussing the situation in Zimbabwe. The poor example of Zimbabwe, which is much regretted by many of her neighbours in the region, is seriously dragging down the whole image of Africa. There are many good people--black and white--in Zimbabwe who wish to have a democratic future but they are unable to secure it. When I and others called for democracy in Zimbabwe, we were told that we would not be welcome in that country again. That exclusion applies to Dame Helen Suzman, the noble Lord, Lord Renwick of Clifton, and several others. I have not tried to go there; I do not particularly want to spend time inside a Zimbabwean gaol and I have much else to do in other countries where people are prepared to listen. We have to create an atmosphere of much greater co-operation.
	I am not sure why the deafness has become so profound in Zimbabwe. Undoubtedly, however, a number of serious mistakes have been made in the dialogue between the parties in Zimbabwe and in that between donors and the Zimbabwean Government. Not to contribute and persevere with common-sense democratic approaches would have very serious consequences. Although I believe that the Minister needs no urging in this respect, we have to go on trying, and we should do so in our bilateral relations and through SADC, the EU and the Group of Eight, as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes of Woodside, said. To have no dialogue would mean not giving an opportunity to those who are working for a common-sense approach in Zimbabwe. That does not mean that we refrain from condemning the behaviour of the thugs in Zimbabwe, who have fought against those--black and white--who want to secure democracy and some economic success in that beleaguered country. I urge the Minister and her colleagues to take every opportunity in every forum in which the Government participate to push for dialogue in Zimbabwe right across the board. When the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting gathers in Brisbane, there may be no option but to condemn Zimbabwe and to force it to withdraw from the Commonwealth. I hope that it will not come to that. Once on the outside, as we know from experience, it is hard to bring back into the field those who have been--in this case, rightly so--cut out of the debate.
	I said that I would not concentrate on Zimbabwe but I have spent two-and-a-half minutes discussing it. It is difficult not to speak of that country. However, there is another country in Southern Africa that is a member of SADC and in which the crucial aim is to gain peace; namely, the Democratic Republic of Congo. Following the death of Laurent Kabila at the hands of one of his own men, there are signs of dialogue in that country and in the countries surrounding it, whether they be supporters of the late Laurent Kabila or believe in the need for change in a democratic manner. The debate is beginning to start between leaders of different groups. We will not see political, social or economic advance in Southern Africa and in Africa as a whole until there is a cessation of the warring activity of the army of the Democratic Republic of Congo and its supporting armies, particularly that from Zimbabwe, which can ill afford to have its troops in the Congo. The defence mechanism, which is frequently painted as an attack mechanism by the rebels in the east and by Rwanda and Uganda, must also cease.
	I want to spend a few minutes discussing the situation in the Congo. I do not know the Congo well--I have visited Kinshasa only three times, and have been to the east a couple of times--but I do know a number of the surrounding countries. Corruption is as rife there as it is in other African countries. The outside world has to take a much greater interest in the scramble for diamonds and precious minerals. Some of the blame for developments in the Congo--obviously, I do not refer to the war there--lies with the reluctance of many nations to take an earlier interest in that country's economic development and in the creation of a level playing field for the exploration and development of precious metals and stones in the region. That said, we cannot change the past, although we can encourage dialogue. The new president, President Joseph Kabila--it is still not clear whether he takes his own decisions or acts out those of others--may be able to encourage dialogue on the basis of the Lusaka agreement, which was signed by all of the countries involved; if so, there is a chance of going forward. However, that requires a national debate in the Congo. In order to encourage that debate, Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-General, appointed the former president of Botswana, Sir Ketumile Masire, as facilitator. Until January Sir Ketumile had absolutely zero success in making progress, despite the help that has been given to him by the British Government and others to help him to get on with the job. It now appears as if there can be progress. I implore the Minister and her colleagues to do all that they can to step up the support for the facilitator and to encourage the Congo nation to participate in creating that national dialogue, which I assure the House is much wanted by the ordinary people of the Congo.
	Members of the House will already know that I have interests in Africa through my business and some of the companies of which I am a director. Dialogue with ordinary people, many of whom are illiterate, makes it clear that they want peace, that they are prepared to work for it and that they do not want warfare to continue. I have been privileged--some would say that I have been unlucky--to see film of some of the attacks by the forces of the Democratic Republic of Congo on Pweto and Peta down in the south-east of the Congo. Seeing those attacks and reading and hearing about what has happened in other parts of the country leaves no doubt in my mind that the UN, members of the G8 and of the EU must back the efforts for peace in the Congo.
	If peace is achieved, other matters may start to fall into place. The withdrawal of the Zimbabwean army back to Zimbabwe would remove at least one of the drains on that country's economy. That would probably give President Mugabe some more problems, but he went into the war knowingly and I have no sympathy for him with regard to the problems with which he may have to cope as a result of his own actions.
	This debate is not solely about making peace or avoiding conflict. As the noble Lords, Lord St John and Lord Hughes, said, it also involves dealing with what I call barriers to business. One of the greatest such barriers is the spread of HIV and AIDS. That should be the subject of an entirely separate debate. An enormous amount of activity and self-help is taking place to prevent the spread of HIV and AIDS. For the World Bank and for all the major donors support for the NGOs has become one of the key areas of activity. There is also support for the Government and the business councils that work through their own businesses to advance information and to create a barrier to the spread of HIV and AIDs.
	The examples of sound leadership in Uganda and Senegal have helped to slow the spread of HIV and AIDs. We now need that sound unequivocal leadership from all the other leaders of African countries where the ravaging advances of this disease, Malaria and TB are such inhibitors to a successful life.
	Every government must start to deal with corruption. That is one of the other main inhibitors to progress--political, social and economic. Some effort is being made. I encourage the Government to back the anti-corruption commissions and, indeed, the efforts being made in a number of countries. But corruption survives where there is no democracy, where there is no transparency and no accountability. That is why elections and good governance are the only real guard against abuse of power. If one guards against the abuse of power, one has a chance to meet the challenges, whether they be political, social or economic.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, reminded us of the days when he and many of us campaigned against the racist regime of Ian Smith in Rhodesia. It is with that in mind that we look with particular horror at the descent by Zimbabwe towards dictatorship. That is especially painful because it is occurring in a country where the Harare declaration was signed 10 years ago. That declaration committed the member states in the Commonwealth to democracy, democratic processes and institutions, the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary and fundamental human rights, including freedom of expression.
	Instead the chief justice has been forced out of office; the Supreme Court has been emasculated by threats and intimidation; the offices of the Daily News have been bombed; foreign correspondents have been kicked out; more than 14 cases of assaults, harassment and intimidation against media professionals, reported by the Zimbabwe Union of Journalists to the police, have not been investigated; the legitimate activities of the opposition MDC have been crippled by murder and violence; and the so-called "war veterans" have brought the economy to a standstill. So it is not simply the occupation of the white farms that we are talking about. We are talking about the system of intimidation and harassment and the undermining of the institutions of democracy by this man.
	In the face of all these indications of a repressive, intolerant regime that has turned against its own people, what should be the reaction of Commonwealth, and, indeed, of the rest of the world at large?
	It is suggested that Zimbabwe should be suspended from the Commonwealth. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, that although that may be for consideration later, and particularly at the CHOGM in Brisbane this coming October, it is the ultimate deterrent. It is a weapon that can be used only once. It is perhaps better if we hold it in suspension as an earnest of the better behaviour of President Mugabe, if indeed, he is susceptible to that kind of persuasion.
	Mr Mugabe has been in Brussels and Paris. No doubt the economic abyss opening up in front of him has persuaded him that he needs the friendship of Europe, which has perhaps more practical implications for him than that of the Commonwealth, because the EU could invoke Article 96 of the Cotonou agreement. Under that an ACP nation is given 60 days to engage the EU in consultations over its unbecoming behaviour.
	The sanctions available to the EU could include suspension of aid valued at 132.7 million euros. Clearly the EU would have to be careful that any such measures would be selectively applied against Mugabe and not against the people of Zimbabwe, who are already the innocent victims of his mismanagement and criminality. But, as the Financial Gazette in Harare commented, he is like a cornered animal and we should be careful not to goad him into even more extreme acts of irrationality.
	Meanwhile, it may not have been noted that there is a steady trickle of asylum-seekers arriving here from Zimbabwe. As the repression continues, it is inevitable that an increasing number of genuine refugees will migrate to the UK. Unfortunately, the Immigration and Nationality Directorate is treating Zimbabweans as prima facie unqualified. There is a "special exercise" to detain them in Oakington and then transfer them routinely to places of detention or prisons. That practice is unlawful. I hope that the Government will carry out a review of the treatment of asylum-seekers from Zimbabwe in the light of the dreadful human rights situation there.
	Yesterday, President Mugabe was due to meet President Chirac to discuss the peace process in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Rwanda, Uganda and Namibia have already disengaged their forces in accordance with Security Council Resolution 1341. There is some hope that by 15th May Angola and Zimbabwe will co-operate with MONUC in preparing a timetabled plan for withdrawal of all their forces and disarmament of the factions.
	Unfortunately, this has coincided with an increase in attacks by non-state armed groups on Catholic-run health facilities in south Kivu. I should like to ask the Minister how the Security Council envisages that adequate security can be provided for civilians in the areas of eastern DRC from which the foreign troops are being withdrawn.
	Yesterday evening on "Focus on Africa", I heard the RCD Minister for External Affairs, Mr Joseph Mudumbi, say that two battalions of Interahamwe, supported by Zimbabwean troops, were moving to occupy Pweto. I suggest that if that happened it would wreck the peace plan. But how can any plan for the disarmament, repatriation or resettlement of armed groups be effective when there is no legal military force in south Kivu? No doubt, the same applies to other areas all the way along the eastern frontier of the DRC.
	The Security Council said that, if the Secretary-General thinks it necessary, it would be prepared to deploy troops to Goma or Bukavu later. Pweto, which is much further to the south on the borders of Zambia, was not mentioned. At the time of the Secretary-General's last report, MONUC had only 200 men in the whole of DRC. It was not meant to be a peace-keeping force. Therefore, the Security Council should be wary of inserting small numbers of troops into what may still be a war situation.
	When President Joseph Kabila visits Britain next week, will the Government discuss with him the huge problem of security all the way along that eastern frontier, and whether a better solution might be achieved by co-operation between the regular forces of the state and those of the RCD?
	As mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, Zimbabwe still has no fewer than 12,000 troops in the country; Angola has 7,000; and Namibia has 2,000. The noble Baroness asked, as I should like to, how can the bankrupt Mugabe afford to maintain such an enormous army in a foreign country? Many Zimbabweans would also like to know the answer to that question. Some have gone to prison for suggesting that the army's top brass and politicians are making a killing by plundering the DRC's valuable mineral assets, as the noble Baroness suggested.
	Part of the cost of the equipment has been met by loans from the Chinese, who supplied 12 F7 fighters at a cost of 3.7 billion dollars, and of course our own generous ECGD, which, until recently, continued to fund the purchase of spares for the Hawk jets.
	Two years ago the cost to Zimbabwe of the war was estimated at 2.3 million dollars a day. That is now probably an underestimate. Is the Minister satisfied that Mugabe is genuinely committed to the withdrawal called for in Security Council Resolution 1341 and that he will stick to the timetable specified?
	The civil war in Angola has also been mentioned. That is draining huge sums from a potentially rich country. It is perhaps the wealthiest in the whole continent, with huge resources of oil, minerals and diamonds. The Angolan Government trousered 800 million dollars in sign-up bonuses for deep-water licences to develop a few blocks for oil exploration. That money has vanished without trace, no doubt into the purchase of arms. What steps will the Government take to ensure greater transparency in the disposal of oil and other mineral royalties in Angola or, for that matter, more generally? It would not apply only to Angola, but that country is one of the largest examples. BP has taken a lead by publishing a good deal of information about payments made to the Angolan Government and Sonangol, but other countries should follow suit. The Angolan Government should produce audited accounts showing how the receipts from the oil licences are being spent.
	Illegal deals with Angola through a group of traffickers, worth 500 million dollars from 1993 onwards, are now being investigated in a Paris court. It is alleged that the principals were M Pierre Falcone, who lives in Paris, and one Arkady Gaidamak, who, it is said, has lived in the Dorchester Hotel in London for the past seven years. On 11th January an international warrant for his arrest was issued by the Tribunal de Grande Instance, but he disappeared before it could be executed. I hope that we are complying fully with requests from the French authorities for co-operation in that case.
	It is a great pity that the Government have not found the time to introduce the strategic export controls Bill, which would require arms brokers who operate from British territory to obtain licences for the sales that they procure from third countries. The Government promised that a draft Bill would be published in the spring. If the Minister can give a firmer date than that in her reply, that would be helpful. Can she also say whether the Bill will apply to foreign nationals in the UK?
	The Monitoring Mechanism on Angolan Sanctions, which reported in December, produced a good deal of information on how the illegal trade in arms to UNITA operates and how it is financed by diamonds. It made a series of recommendations on improving the effectiveness of the sanctions. It would be useful if the Minister could say what action the Security Council is taking to implement those recommendations. Among other things, can the Minister say what steps we are taking, as close allies of the UAE, to persuade the authorities there to curtail the activities of Mr Victor Bout, who is a prominent player in those illegal activities? Mr Bout operates a fleet of ageing Russian planes from Sharjah and uses them to transport illegal arms to the region.
	Can we also, via the EU, lean on states which are candidates for accession to see that they verify end-user certificates? A great deal of the illegal arms traffic into UNITA came from countries in eastern Europe which apparently accepted those end-user certificates, although later many of them turned out to have been forged. The report details millions of dollars' worth of sales by Romania and Bulgaria in particular, ostensibly to Togo and Burkina Faso but actually destined for UNITA. Should that matter be monitored by the Enlargement Commission of the European Union? How else can we be certain that candidates for accession are taking adequate measures to ensure that arms sales by companies under their jurisdiction are not being diverted for illegal purposes?
	It is amazing that in this business arms suppliers rely on the authenticity of pieces of paper as their warrant to enter into large transactions worth millions of dollars. Perhaps the OAU would consider setting up a register in which all member states would be invited to lodge copies of certificates. Do the Government have other ideas on how to stop the use of false end-user certificates?
	Southern Africa has many other problems, which I do not have time to deal with in this debate. However, our ties in the SADC region with fellow members of the Commonwealth, our role as a permanent member of the Security Council, and our position as one of the main investors in the region should all enable us to make a contribution towards the solution of those problems and the conflicts which have plagued the region and prevented it from realising its full potential.

Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, it is a pleasure to participate in this debate. I congratulate my noble friend Lord St John of Bletso on his timing for this topic. In the declaration of category 3 interests, I record that I am a Fellow (unremunerated) of Commonwealth Partnership for Technology Management Ltd--CPTM for short. I shall return to that in a moment. First, briefly I shall provide the background to CPTM, which has a large amount of support and influence in various parts of the world, particularly in Southern Africa.
	CPTM was formally established by a Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting at Auckland in 1995 as a not-for-profit UK company, limited by guarantee and without shareholding. It is financed by interested Commonwealth governments and by a few private sector companies. It owes its genesis to efforts in the early 1980s to help link the fields of technology, business and economics for wealth creation in the developing areas of the Commonwealth. It relies on extensive networking, which it pioneered, to promote partnerships between governments and businesses.
	More recently, the range of contacts has included labour and media representation and participation beyond Commonwealth boundaries. New ideas may be floated and tested without compromising formal Commonwealth structures. It has broken down bureaucratic barriers to discussion, planning and action; it provides quick networking access for less formal contacts between countries and individuals; yet it retains strong formal linkage with CHOGM and other Commonwealth organs.
	Although much is achieved at national and regional levels, CPTM's major efforts are directed at arranging a series of meetings, known as "Smart Partnership" dialogues. Those meetings are attended by many of the developing countries of Southern Africa and by Malaysia, Indian Ocean nations and the Caribbean. Uniquely for such gatherings, the active participation of heads of state and government over a three or four-day period has been a key feature. I have attended the last three such gatherings at Victoria Falls in Zimbabwe, Maputo in Mozambique and, last November, at Langkawi in Malaysia.
	The meeting at Victoria Falls was attended by a dozen heads of state and a couple of former heads. With President Mugabe in the chair, we had, in alphabetical order, President Chiluba from Zambia, President Chissano from Mozambique, President Mbeki from South Africa, President Mogae from Botswana, President Muluzi from Malawi, President Museveni from Uganda, President Nujoma from Namibia and President Rawlings from Ghana. To the latter, I said tongue-in-cheek over breakfast that perhaps I could try to pull rank on Flight-Lieutenant (retired) President Rawlings. We got on very well. Prime Ministers from Malaysia, Lesotho and Swaziland also attended.
	I participate in all the Fellows-only closed sessions. The heads are the core of the Fellows group and only three or four other Fellows, of which I happen to be one, attend with them. It was clear how valuable the heads of developing nations find the informal and participatory atmosphere of the Smart Partnership dialogues. Perhaps I may characterise that by one example.
	Towards the end of the meetings at Victoria Falls and at one of the larger open sessions, it fell to me to introduce a message from the Fellows to the CHOGM which was to take place in Durban in six weeks' time. The burden of the message was to inform the CHOGM of CPTM's development since it was formally approved in 1995 at Auckland and given encouragement and increased support at the Edinburgh CHOGM of 1997.
	After I had drafted a suitable communique, I soon cleared it with President Mugabe as the chairman of the gathering. When I introduced the message in the final session of the dialogue, I proposed to say that President Mbeki, who would be chairing the CHOGM in Durban, had undertaken to bring the Fellows' communication to the attention of his colleagues at the CHOGM.
	I had a chat with President Mbeki, and he was very happy to agree to what I proposed to say. When my programmed slot came, I gave some background to my own position, including a reference to my unique advantage over many there as a member of a Parliament for life, unless declared bankrupt or found guilty of murder. I ran through the bullet points in the communique. I had noted that there was no sign of President Mbeki in his place. I assumed that he had left to get home. When I reached the place in my script which said that His Excellency President Mbeki had agreed to bring the message to the attention of his colleagues in Durban, there was a large round of applause. That was gratifying, of course, and I continued to the end.
	At dinner that evening, I was surprised to see President Mbeki and I said to him that I had not seen him in the marquee during the latter part of the afternoon but that when I had said my piece about his undertaking, it had been very well received. To my surprise he said that yes, he knew that because he had been standing at the back of the marquee and heard all that I had said.
	That combination of informality and several days continuously together provides many opportunities to share and discuss, without the rigidity of set-piece meetings, a whole range of issues. At Victoria Falls, greater integration of regional tourism was one theme. Last August in Mozambique we discussed developing the Maputo transportation corridor, so important to seaport access for the inland countries of that part of the world.
	It was amazing to see how resilient President Chissano and his countrymen were following those disastrous floods earlier in that year. I hope that their successful recovery last year will not impact adversely on the support which that country now so urgently requires yet again as the Zambezi River floods and breaks its banks.
	Last November in Malaysia, interest focused on improving the media coverage of those developing countries' affairs, with special interest in how to benefit from globalisation and the protection of intellectual property rights.
	At all those gatherings, the problems of HIV-AIDS are also aired. Indeed, the first ladies also devoted a great deal of time to meetings and discussions about AIDS. Mrs Grace Mugabe has been a most active advocate of greater efforts to tackle that problem and has done much to raise awareness of the need for action rather than mere talk. My wife was included in those talks.
	I was impressed when President Museveni said that he had decided that HIV-AIDS in Uganda should be treated as a subject for education. He had moved responsibility for it from the ministry of health to the ministry of education. Even then, he said that the only way to ensure that the message is heard and understood is for him, the president, to go on tours of the villages. People would come to hear him in large numbers, far more than would turn out for a minister. So he personally lectured on safe sex, condoms and all that his people must know about that dreadful scourge. No country in Africa is free from it but Uganda has a better record than most. President Museveni is to be congratulated on his enlightened approach. From some others, there is a regrettable tendency to look the other way or even to deny that there is a pandemic.
	The presence of so many heads at those dialogues--and other countries are represented at vice-president or senior minister levels--all willing to participate in an unstructured manner and in a way that is not pre-scripted is very welcome. For the other delegates who come, around 250 or 300, the opportunities to converse and network with the heads of government and among others with similar business interests to themselves has proved to be extremely successful. The philosophy of those gatherings may best be summed up in the phrases "win-win" and "smart partnership"; helping thy neighbour, not confronting or challenging him.
	Uniquely for a Commonwealth organ, CPTM has been able to reach beyond the Commonwealth. The prime minister of Krygyzstan and a senior minister from Algeria joined us in Langkawi and if His Majesty King Hussein of Jordan had not died early in 1999, I would have been co-chairing a 1999 smart partnership dialogue which the king and the then crown prince had planned for Petra.
	This year, the dialogue will be held in Kampala. It promises to be a lively and successful occasion under the dynamic chairmanship of President Museveni, assuming, of course, that he wins his election next week. The theme for our discussions in Kampala will be enhancing the climate for foreign direct investment though smart partnership.
	There is much to do to help Southern Africa and other developing countries, and help can take many forms. Not so well known but, I believe, significant is the work of CPTM. It is an excellent example of a Commonwealth activity with a new, fresh approach. It emphasises public/private partnerships. It has enjoyed the support of the British Government since its inception. I welcome that lead from the Government and hope that it will long continue. I commend CPTM's activities to your Lordships. I urge the Commonwealth High Level Review Group, under the chairmanship of President Mbeki, to give CPTM the strongest endorsement and the moral and financial support which it requires to pursue its work for good throughout the developing Commonwealth and beyond.

The Lord Bishop of Bristol: My Lords, I join with others in thanking the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, for giving your Lordships' House the opportunity to debate the serious challenges which face Southern Africa and our part in them.
	In December 1998, in Harare, the World Council of Churches celebrated the 50th anniversary of its founding in Amsterdam. The celebrations in Harare were marked by an African exuberance, the highlight of which was the arrival of Nelson Mandela. His speech, while thanking the missionaries for the schools and hospitals without which he would not have been standing before us, also echoed what the assembly had already heard and decided upon; namely, that much of the council's work needed to concentrate in the future on the continent of Africa.
	The situation then was bad and over the past two years, it has become worse, much worse, as we have already heard, because of the natural disasters in Mozambique, political instability in Zimbabwe and the continuing problems concerning disease and the economy for which we have some responsibility.
	The World Council of Churches, with its 337 member churches, and in co-operation with the relief agencies across the world, has pinpointed two areas of special concern: HIV/AIDS and debt relief. In reality, those two major issues are very much related. Disease leads to poverty and poverty leads to disease. The spiral of poverty leads to social and economic collapse of families, communities and even nations.
	We have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, and others about the number of people who are HIV positive. We recognise that that is quite staggering: 1,500 people are newly infected every day in South Africa alone.
	One of the results has been to create 100,000 children orphaned in one year. That is far too many for the extended family to absorb, which has been one of the strengths of Southern Africa. Suddenly we find that it is necessary to provide orphanages in great numbers.
	But with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, I would like to add that it is not all gloom for in Uganda, which perhaps I know best, with a major education programme introduced in 1987, the numbers of newly diagnosed HIV infected people dropped from 200,000 per year to 57,000 in 1997. It is still a staggering figure but progress has been made.
	Safe sex education, practical advice and structures around marriage have had some mitigating effects. But the need for drugs is now being pinpointed. I read that the World Bank estimated that the cost of drugs to treat AIDS in Africa alone is over 10 billion US dollars. That begins to reveal the enormity of the problem.
	In 1995, as we have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hughes of Woodside, the members of the World Trade Organisation signed, as part of the GATT package, the trade-related intellectual property rights agreement. In particular, under this agreement the pharmaceutical industry, has had the monopoly of manufacturing and selling its products for 20 years.
	The effect of those agreements has been that the governments of Southern African countries have been prevented from finding the cheapest possible sources for essential medicines required for public clinics and hospitals. From the noble Lord, Lord Hughes of Woodside, we have already heard that something has happened, of which I am not aware, but perhaps the Minister can clarify that. Perhaps the Minister will say whether Her Majesty's Government have any intention of addressing this issue in the next round of talks.
	HIV/AIDS and debt relief are bound together in Southern Africa. The Jubilee 2000 Coalition campaign for the remittance of unpayable debt has been heard by governments and peoples. In this regard we can be proud of the leadership given by successive British governments. I want to put on record the pride that I feel at international meetings when such issues are raised.
	Such a movement is right on humanitarian grounds as well as on grounds of justice, but I believe that it is good economics as well. Countries that take responsibility for their own economies in their own ways, increase trade and increase markets to the benefit of us all. But as we have already heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker of Wallasey, the issue of corruption has yet to be properly addressed. I believe that the leaders of churches worldwide, and especially those in Southern Africa should make witness in this respect. We need to tackle not just debt relief but also the issue of corruption itself.
	As we have already seen, the connection between disease and poverty is real. While we would all agree that we have to help the nations of Southern Africa to address the provision of healthcare and making available clean and safe drinking water, and while we would agree that the remittance of debt is vitally important, that cannot be where our responsibility ends.
	At a recent meeting of the Central Committee of the World Council of Churches in Berlin in February this year a whole session was devoted to a close look at the world economy. I suspect that we may not necessarily have liked what was said about the World Bank, the IMF or the World Trade Organisation by some of the representatives from the south, but it becomes understandable when just one story among many is told in relation to agreements on agriculture.
	In October 1997, a fruit canning factory, the main employer in the fruit-growing area of a small town in the western Cape in South Africa, had to close down. It could no longer sell its canned fruit in Japan, its traditional market, because Greek peach canners, benefiting from export refunds, exploited the system to price them out of the market. They were also priced out of the EU market by the high import taxes imposed on canned fruit in the EU. The result was a loss of 800 permanent jobs and 4,000 seasonal jobs. Time does not allow me to tell of beef exports to northern Namibia or issues surrounding the production of sugar and dairy products.
	When an agreement was signed in 1995, all World Trade Organisation members agreed to reduce all forms of subsidies given to their agricultural sectors. At that time the United States, the European Union and Japan provided 80 per cent of all subsidies, to which can be added the help given in marketing costs and the payments to exporters where price differences were to their disadvantage. It is estimated that in 1998 that amounted to 274 billion US dollars. In anybody's language that is a lot of money and puts people in Southern Africa at a great disadvantage when they seek to help themselves.
	There is no level playing field and all the help given by individuals, Comic Relief and aid agencies is like trying to stem the mighty Zambezi with buckets and spades. The words of the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, rightly cover political, social and economic matters. Such matters interact with each other, as has been made abundantly clear by noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. But we cannot sit by and observe. In order to enable Southern African countries to help themselves, major issues relating to the agreements of the World Trade Organisation need to be addressed.
	I hope that the Minister will be able to tell the House how the Government propose to deal with the two issues: drugs in relation to HIV/AIDS and subsidies in relation to the economy. There is also our continuing concern to provide debt relief. A verse in the Old Testament mentions being one's "brother's keeper". We are our black and white brothers' keeper in Southern Africa.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, for initiating this debate.
	One of the greatest African statesmen whom I had the privilege of knowing was Robert Gardiner, a Ghanaian in the UN who became head of the Economic Commission for Africa. He believed that the most precious gift that the British gave to Africa was the rule of law, where before there had been only the power of the witchdoctor and the corruption and fear through which that power was exercised.
	We left behind all too fragile infrastructures because a combination of political correctness, war-weariness after 1945 and the dead hand of a Treasury without vision caused us to withdraw from Africa at least a generation too soon. At that time there were simply not enough trained Africans with experience of government in a modern world. Some of the African leaders did not lack authority, ability or the readiness to accept and use responsibility--for instance, in Kenyatta, Malcolm MacDonald recognised that ability--but in far too many ministries and governments there were fine front doors but no house yet built behind them. The Congo had no infrastructure at all at independence and many of its evils stem from that.
	As President Kaunda told me in recent years, he had four experienced, able and reliable men whom he had to move around key posts. A good friend of mine, previously a young district officer, on independence was made permanent under-secretary in the ministry of foreign affairs, then secretary to the cabinet and finally governor of the Bank of Zambia, before he became IBM's representative in Southern Africa.
	The people want peace, stability and health in a region that is under the dark shadow of AIDS, the chance to be educated and developed and the power to change their leaders by democratic choice. In Zambia, President Kaunda accepted the people's decision that he must give way to a freely elected successor, President Chiluba. Unfortunately, Chiluba is attempting to resist the democratic process.
	In South Africa a yet more remarkable peaceful transfer of power took place. Between those two countries lies Zimbabwe, which has an excellent infrastructure but also trouble. We all know something of what is happening there from the attacks on freedom of the press and on the judiciary, to the state-driven attacks on blacks and whites alike in the cities as well as on the farms if they appear to pose any threat to Mugabe.
	Two years ago the greatest living African, Nelson Mandela, said that Mugabe was a tyrant who should be removed from power. He should know what tyranny is and how precious is freedom. Therefore, I do not understand why neither the Commonwealth, which has been so quick to condemn Fiji and Pakistan, nor the United Nations, nor the European Union, which outlawed Austria because of the emergence of one neo-Nazi party which did not even enjoy power, has acted to denounce and to condemn what the leader of a country is doing to his own people.
	I recognise that the United Kingdom has to refrain from public condemnation for fear of Robert Mugabe being able to claim that a former colonial power is attempting to dictate to a sovereign African country. The leader of the MDC appears to support that view.
	I was glad that the Secretary of State privately asked the Belgian Government to raise such issues as the intimidation of judges, the harassment of the press and the "unacceptable" treatment of white farmers--in most countries, the murder of an elderly woman at the very moment of Mugabe's visit would indeed be considered "unacceptable"--but what about the European Commissioner for Development and still more the President of France? Mugabe has broken every promise on development and on loan; has flouted the UN and the donors' conference; and is behaving with the utmost brutality to his own people, black and white Zimbabweans alike. And yet the Commission wants to "build confidence". Confidence-building measures do not exactly have a good record in this country. The EU must have been confusing the visit with a negotiation with the IRA.
	It is no use the Government claiming that they have achieved serious power and influence in the EU, as I hope they have, nor the EU setting up military bodies to enable it to carry out humanitarian tasks, even within a non-compliant country, if we are then to be treated to the sight of an EU Commissioner negotiating with an undoubted tyrant. I hope that we shall be told exactly what was offered and what, if anything, the EU did to protect law and order in a beleaguered country.
	The Belgian Government's claim to need to talk to Mugabe is that the Zimbabwe army is an important player in any negotiation for peace in the Congo. We have heard some interesting background on that from my noble friend Lady Chalker. Belgium has heavy responsibility for the chaos there and a natural interest in the country. But I should be very surprised, I fear, if Mr Mugabe had any intention of bringing his troops home. On the one hand, he and some senior officers are making too much money from their mining concessions, including diamonds; and, on the other hand, the troops, when they return home, will discover what has been happening to their families. They will perhaps call their C-in-C to account for deplorable support in the field and for not a few black bags--all in support of a country where they have no national interest.
	The French of course also have a major interest in what happens in the Congo, but they are probably also angling for achieving influence in Zimbabwe. It remains very important to France to be seen as the only really influential European power in Africa, quite apart from not inconsiderable commercial considerations.
	We must also be concerned, I fear, about whatever Libya may be promoting on Mugabe's behalf in the new African union and perhaps in South Africa, given the ANC's close historic links with Libya, to which country they feel they owe much. If we are to claim to have an ethical foreign policy, it seems to me we need to demonstrate that we respect and defend the principles of freedom under the law. I have never been able to understand why the events in Zimbabwe were seen for so long as simply the awkward problem of a small group of colonialist whites. They, too, are Zimbabwe citizens who were born and brought up there. Most bought their farms from the government and before the land could be bought that government had to declare that they did not want it.
	The whole livelihood and future of the Africans who work on the commercial farms is bound up with them. Their skills and commitment are paramount. The farmers' union has repeatedly offered to turn over designated farms in return for the sale of the land and to leave the whole infrastructure to be managed by African farm managers whom they have been training for some years, and by the African workers on the farms who well know how to run them. They would have every chance of running viable commercial farms, an important part of the economy.
	Instead, the government want, as they have done before, to settle landless men without skills and without capital, since the government refuse to give land title and therefore they have no collateral on which to borrow to grow a subsistence crop. Those Africans who have worked the farms for years, and their families, including the very young and the very old, will become refugees, flowing over into the neighbouring African countries and first and foremost into South Africa. Most of these Africans have worked for the same family for years and they live in communities which include a school, a clinic, a shop and modern housing for the workers. They are virtually villages. When they are destroyed and the workers and their families are driven out, as happened on a number of farms, they face complete destitution.
	These people, and not only the white farmers, saw their only protection in the law, a free vote and a free press. They have lost all three. They cannot even expect police protection when their houses are torched and their wives beaten. Yet the Commonwealth does nothing visible; the UN does nothing; and the EU does something disastrous. What kind of cynical message are we allowing to be sent to desperate, brave people? It would be ironic indeed if the EU's first Petersberg task proved to be the evacuation of refugees.
	I know that in these dangerous days no government want to have to display their hand to the enemy, but I share the growing fear of the people of Zimbabwe that nothing is being done. At the very least, a major statement, led by the Scandinavian countries, which are respected in Africa and have no colonial baggage, is needed to give hope. A practical step would be a proposal for an immediate meeting of the donor countries involved in the 1998 conference with the UN and Zimbabwe, together with perhaps South Africa representing the African countries. That would be engagement with Mugabe; it would be a constructive approach which he would be hard pressed to reject.
	At present, I am only too forcefully reminded of the years of appeasement in Europe before World War II. Africans, like us, respect principle. I do not advocate sanctions--they never worked in Africa before and they probably would not now. I suggest that it could well be that in risking bloodshed, the people of Zimbabwe will free themselves before the country reaches disaster--and they are the only people who can in the end do so--but they will remember then what we did and what we did not do.

The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, we are fortunate in this House to have as a Member the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, with all his experience of Southern Africa. I congratulate him on introducing the debate and thank him for giving us this opportunity to speak.
	It is easy to feel outraged about the situation in Zimbabwe, but outrage of course changes nothing. So far in the debate, we have been restrained. Our Government have chosen to take a low profile, with the aim of upholding human rights and the rule of law through African leaders and the Commonwealth. But as the noble Baroness, Lady Park, so well pointed out, we may have to do even more than that.
	South Africa and Zimbabwe share some common history and many present objectives. My foremost hope is that they will learn from each other. The signs are that President Thabo Mbeki will see it as his duty to become more involved in restoring peace in the region and respect for the law in Zimbabwe. He, after all, has much to be proud of in South Africa, as I shall mention later, and he is the only African leader who can influence Robert Mugabe. The new young Congolese President also seems anxious to rebuild his links overseas. It is encouraging to hear the news from the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, especially about the special facilitator. Perhaps he, with Mbeki's support, will breath new life into the Southern African development community to revive the Lusaka Accord, which is one of its main purposes, and in that way exercise restraint on his principal ally.
	However, these pious hopes still look like straws in the wind. The ordinary people of Zimbabwe are suffering terribly under a cruel and racist dictatorship which betrays so many of the principles behind the liberation war. I cannot forget the positive outlook of the bridge-builders of modern Zimbabwe, the young federals and liberals whom I met in the early 1960s, the influence of the churches during the liberation struggle and the new truly multi-racial society which followed. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, mentioned President Vorster, but no wonder that the voice if Ian Smith has been heard again in terrible mockery of Mugabe.
	How can Zimbabweans get out of this impasse? Do those who have come to respect the law because of its colonial associations now have to accept the appointment of "liberated" judges who feel empathy with those oppressed by the same system in the past? Is it necessary to go back in time and understand the anguish which Mugabe and others genuinely suffered under Ian Smith in order to re-establish a position of trust; or is a stiff upper lip, steady support for the rule of law and silent resistance to blackmail still the best option, especially for the parliamentary opposition which, after all, now claims the real moral high ground? The truth must be somewhere in between these positions.
	ZANU-PF's violent attacks on the judiciary and media have rightly provoked angry reactions. The Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group will be tested when it meets and will no doubt resort to the Harare declaration. I doubt whether sanctions or expulsion on the Pakistan-Nigeria model will help, and I am relieved to hear that other noble Lords agree with that. But pressure will certainly be needed, especially to unite African leaders behind a peaceful solution.
	It is not enough to preach human rights and democracy unless land reform and resettlement are back on the agenda, as all Zimbabweans now accept. That was an injustice inherent in the Lancaster House agreement which still must be put right. Britain cannot simply be seen to protect the interests of commercial farmers. One approach may be to revise the dialogue with SADC and other organisations in the UN over Britain's contribution to resettlement and the land redistribution plan set out by UNDP. Perhaps the Minister is able to comment on that.
	One oppressed group which has largely been ignored, as the noble Baroness, Lady Park, pointed out, is the farm workers who are caught between the militant war veterans and the commercial farmers. Thousands have been ill-treated and beaten on suspicion of their links with the MDC or former employers. The latest wave of violence has occurred in Matabeleland North where ZANU-PF is again trying to intimidate those who failed to support it in the elections. It is a brutal form of civil war in which local government vehicles are used to carry war veterans to attack farmers and farm workers and MDC supporters are cruelly denounced by ZANU for "voting for recolonisation".
	Research by NGOs, such as the Zimbabwe Network of Informal Settlements, shows how farm workers are trying to survive on subsistence plots on abandoned farms in the wake of destruction by the war veterans who extort money from them. These farm workers are not recognised in the Government's resettlement plan and are expected to live on almost nothing while the country depends on them for food supplies. Severe food shortages are imminent, partly because of the lack of rainfall and past drought, but chiefly because of the devastation and economic chaos which affect the rural poor most and spare the Government, police and ruling party. When the Minister comes to respond on Mozambique perhaps she can confirm that Britain is also helping NGOs such as Save the Children to assist an estimated 11,000 people who are, I believe, affected by floods in northern Zimbabwe.
	Turning to South Africa, there have been very encouraging developments which have some relevance for Zimbabwe. First, as one who once worked alongside the Churches in the anti-apartheid movement, I have been impressed by the growing pluralism and genuine democracy which has held up since the retirement of President Mandela. The biggest achievement is the alliance with Inkatha, which is as much a tribute to the ANC's organisation in KwaZulu-Natal as to Chief Buthelezi, and, with that, the gradual erosion of the crude political power of traditional Zulu leadership. Secondly, there is the surprising ability of the Opposition to challenge the ANC, most recently in the Zimbabwean debate in parliament, although without much prospect of a viable political alternative. As in the UK, we watch the development of a born-again opposition which is essential to a healthy democracy. Even more important are the prospects of friendly criticism within the ranks of the ANC and its allies, whether on social change, politics, the economy or Zimbabwe.
	Nelson Mandela, as we have heard, does not hesitate to speak out. Only last week we heard Zwelinzima Vavi, head of the Congress of South African Trade Unions, say at a seminar in Johannesburg:
	"People cannot eat slogans, rhetoric or history; liberty must bring tangible benefits to the oppressed".
	That is a very simple statement. He was referring to Robert Mugabe, but in another sense it was a warning to the ANC leadership that the time of heroes was over and the people still waited for results. The growth, employment and redistribution programme still has not delivered on earlier promises, and the low turnout in the local elections is itself the strongest indicator of disaffection within the ANC. Others have already described the economic and fiscal successes achieved by South Africans under Trevor Manuel's firm guidance, perhaps influenced, bizarrely, by our own Chancellor.
	Knowing that the noble Baroness is to reply to the debate, I should like to spend a few minutes on the condition of the poorest in South Africa and the small contribution of the Government. Foreign aid to South Africa is only a fraction of GNP. In the past decade aid has been only 0.4 per cent, but it needs to be targeted towards health services and education in deprived areas, such as the KwaZulu-Natal hinterland where, incidentally, farmers have also suffered from foot and mouth disease in recent months. Britain gave £32 million in 1998, mainly for essential projects to help the rural and urban poor; for example, AIDS prevention which is obviously vital today. But that aid works out at only £6 per head in South Africa, compared with £11 in Zimbabwe and £16 in Zambia. Can the Minister see any reason why the poorest South Africans should receive any less per capita than other Southern Africans?
	The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred to asylum seekers. It is a sad but telling fact that skilled South Africans and Zimbabweans of all ethnic origins are leaving for Australia and Europe, and many are now in Britain. I saw one report in the Financial Times that one-fifth of registered nurses have left Zimbabwe since last June. The number of asylum seekers from Zimbabwe has risen ten fold since 1998. The provisional total for last year is 980, which is twice the number of those accepted for settlement in 1999. In 1998 and 1999, according to figures kindly supplied by the Library, 49,000 South Africans came here while only 12,000 left, which is a net gain of 37,000 in that period. These numbers rise when dual nationality is taken into account. That is, surely, further telling evidence for both Presidents Mugabe and Mbeki that Britain must not be seen as a problem but as part of an urgent solution.

Lord Brett: My Lords, the ninth speaker in a debate of this nature faces the certainty that what he wants to say has already been said with much greater expertise given the experience of Africa, ministerial or otherwise, that resides on all Benches. Another certainty, of which my noble friend Lord Hughes reminds us, is that this debate is likely to be a Cook's tour of the region. My contribution will be a Cook's tour of a country that has not yet been mentioned. Some echoes of the contributions of noble Lords will, I believe, play a part in the points that I make.
	I refer to six friendships that I have made in the International Labour Organisation over the past dozen years. These South African trade union leaders, past and present, have had a considerable willingness to fight for democracy and gone on to give their countries greater service. Sam Shilowa, former general secretary of COSATU, is now the Premier of Gauteng. Cyril Ramaphosa, also formerly of COSATU, is now a major industrial figure in South Africa and is assisting in the Northern Ireland peace process. My former colleague on the worker benches of the ILO, Freddie Chiluba, has gone to even greater heights. He reached the exalted position of elected President of Zambia. I regret to say that his enthusiasm for democracy seems to have waned somewhat since. I share with the noble Lord, Lord St John, and others concern about his willingness perhaps to forget past ideals in his desire to hold on to power at present. In Zimbabwe, Morgan Tsvangirai and Gibson Sibanda, formerly leaders of the Zimbabwe Council of Trade Unions and now the MDC, continue to be friends. I hope to greet Gibson Sibanda in two weeks' time in Geneva at the governing body of the ILO, as he remains a member on the worker benches.
	However, I am worried about the threat of the withdrawal of the passports of those who have been arraigned before the courts. Both Morgan and Gibson have been before the courts. If that is the case, and Gibson is prevented from carrying out his international obligations by the Mugabe regime, I hope that our Government, other European governments and the ILO will raise the greatest protest. I join the noble Lord, Lord St John, and other noble Lords in condemning what has happened in Zimbabwe. I visited Zimbabwe last year and produced a report, which I circulated to colleagues, on what I found there. What I forecast has, regrettably, turned out to be the case.
	I have mentioned five friends. I wish to mention a sixth. He is Jan Sithole, President of the Swaziland Federation of Trade Unions. I have visited Swaziland three times in 10 years, twice in an attempt to get Jan Sithole out of prison. Swaziland is a small and beautiful country with a population of only a million. It is in southern Africa. It does not have tribal divisions. It has a monarch who stands high in the affection of many of his people. It has only one major problem. It has no democracy. In emergency legislation in 1973, the present king's father abolished and banned political parties. That remains the case today.
	Swaziland has many things going for it. It has a relatively high standard of living. But it has now a festering sore. The great thing about being the tenth speaker is that previous speakers quote. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, who is not now in his place, quoted Kofi Annan saying that there is a thirst for democracy. There is a thirst. It exists in most parts of the world. It exists no less in Swaziland. But it is a small country and does not capture attention. There are not that many countries with influence over Swaziland. It is a member of the Commonwealth. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, reminded us of the Harare Declaration. That is just as applicable to Swaziland, which has no political parties, as to any one-party state in Africa. But there is a difference. Our Government have a part to play and should have an influence in that country.
	In the 10 years I have known him, my friend Jan Sithole has not only been incarcerated twice but is now again before the court on charges, with a view to silencing the only democratic voice in that country. The Swaziland Federation of Trade Unions took upon itself the democratic voice and it is the only allowed democratic organisation. But it joins the Bar Association, the Churches, the youth sections and the employers of Swaziland in demanding that those around Swaziland bring pressure on the government. It is a strange government--a feudal monarchy. The government are appointed by the king. The king is held in high esteem. It is an almost soviet system--no one criticises the king but everyone criticises the shadowy figures around him.
	The noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, commented on President Mbeki's silent diplomacy and how unsuccessful it has been in respect of Zimbabwe. Great Britain has been engaging in silent diplomacy in Swaziland for a decade or more. It is not good enough to hope that the patient and peaceful nature of the Swazi people will continue; it will not. My friend Jan Sithole and his organisation have been the subject of harassment over a decade. The trade union laws in that country were changed to prevent the trade union movement being a voice of protest and dissent.
	In 1995, Jan Sithole was kidnapped, stripped naked, put in the boot of his rather battered old Mercedes and left on a mountain road where, had a lorry come along, it would have pushed the Mercedes down a ravine. Fortunately, someone on a bicycle heard his knocking from the boot and released him. He told his story to a number of colleagues in Geneva. Jan Sithole is a big lad. He is almost my size. One of my trade union colleagues, who is well versed in negotiations, said, "But, Jan, if there were only two of them, why did you get into the car so easily? You are a big man". Jan said dryly, "They were carrying AK-47s, and it was not a negotiation".
	Everyone who knows Jan Sithole believes that he is the least likely revolutionary leader. He is a deeply religious man. He does not want to see the monarchy removed from that country. But he is a man who, with his colleagues in the Swaziland Federation of Trade Unions, is determined to call for democracy and is in a sense disappointed that that call is not being echoed in countries such as ours. Many of us are concerned about what is happening in South Africa, Zimbabwe and Zambia. We should have the same degree of concern for our colleagues in Swaziland. The fact that it is a small country should not deter us from speaking up.
	I hope that when the Minister responds to the debate she will be able to give assurances. What are we doing to ensure that democracy comes to that country? Can we really see a Commonwealth in the 21st century with the last remaining feudal kingdom? Should we not be concerned about that? Fortunately, as far as I know, only one person--a schoolgirl--has been killed in the rioting that has taken place from time to time in the capital of Swaziland. I hope that we will not wait for the situation to worsen. My fear is that at some stage Jan Sithole will be swept aside and replaced by people who are far less peaceful and far more revolutionary. There is a diaspora of young educated Swazis in South Africa and other countries. They are calling for democracy in Swaziland.
	While we are rightly concerned about the repugnant things that are happening in Zimbabwe and while we are concerned about my good friends Morgan Tsvangirai and Gibson Sibanda, I hope that noble Lords will also have regard for someone whom many will not know, whose name they have not heard, but who, for almost 10 years now, has led peacefully and with great expertise the only democratic organisation in Swaziland and has tried to bring about the understanding of his government, his monarch and his community in moving towards democracy before feudalism is swept away in that part of the world, as it was swept away a century ago in Europe. I hope that in our great concern for the whole of Africa, we do not forget one small country, Swaziland.

Lord Vivian: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, on bringing this subject to your Lordships' attention today. In my contribution to the debate I shall concentrate on Zimbabwe.
	A few years ago I visited Zimbabwe to stay with some very great friends. During that time I spent three days with the Commercial Farmers Union visiting a number of farms and land. These visits culminated in separate meetings with the British High Commissioner and the president, chairman and chief executive of the Commercial Farmers Union. It took place around the time soon after some 1,470 farms had been gazetted by the Zimbabwean government for compulsory acquisition without compensation and the landowners were filing applications to the courts to prevent that happening.
	The conclusions from this visit were many and three of them I remember well. First, white farmers would be content to sell some of their land provided fair compensation was paid by the government. Secondly, the government refused, and still will not give the small black farmers title deeds to their land on which they have been resettled. As a result, no newly resettled person can apply for a loan from the bank to buy seed corn, fertiliser or water pumps, and thus the land is not farmed, the trees are chopped down for firewood and the area becomes an arid dust bowl. However, it was significant to see black farmers who had attended one year at an agricultural training college financed by the Commercial Farmers Union producing as good a quality of tobacco as white farmers.
	As we all know, the overall situation in Zimbabwe has now become very grave. Turning to the political situation, the elections held on 24th and 25th June of last year were marred by politically inspired violence and intimidation. The Movement for Democratic Change was formed in September 1999 and, in the recent election, it won 57 of the 120 contested seats, with ZANU-PF winning 62. It is now mounting legal challenges to the results in 37 ZANU-PF constituencies. But in December Mugabe violated the constitution when he issued a statutory instrument banning opposition lawsuits over disputed results, even if the incumbent was convicted of electoral corruption. It is more than apparent that Mugabe is taking action to ensure that he remains in power by using his private militia, which has already shed innocent blood and specialises in intimidation, beatings and murder; and a police force and military that always carry out the instructions from ZANU-PF.
	The opposition leader, Mr Tsvangirai, a most courageous man, expects an early election as a new wave of repression has started and the crisis that has come from the collapse of the economy gathers pace daily. A pre-election campaign of unparalleled ferocity has started and ZANU-PF will resort to massive repression conducted by the so-called war veterans.
	Mugabe has stepped up his campaign against the media by bombing the main independent newspaper, the Daily News, and by the expulsion of a BBC World Service reporter on 17th February. A journalist working for a South African newspaper has also been ordered to leave. White farmers are still being intimidated, beaten and tragically murdered. Judges' lives have been threatened. Political opponents have been beaten and the so-called war veteran thugs are turned loose on anyone who has had the courage to challenge the despotism that is now passing for presidential rule. The law itself is no longer a protection from harassment. The judiciary has been denounced as biased, the supreme court has been surrounded by thugs and the chief justice has been forced to retire early. Mr Mugabe's evil actions have plunged the country into war and penury.
	I shall now turn to the economy. Its main pillars are farming, mining and tourism; all three have collapsed. The economy is in a critical situation, with unemployment running at over 60 per cent, inflation at 60 per cent and foreign currency reserves have run out. Interest rates are at 70 per cent and the lack of foreign currency reserves has led to fuel shortages and power cuts, as the country is dependent on 40 per cent of its electricity and energy supplies from adjacent countries. The Zimbabwe dollar is overvalued, despite recent devaluations. In the past, mining has accounted for around one-third of exports and 23 per cent of GDP, while commercial farming accounts for around 19 per cent of GDP and earns 40 per cent of the country's foreign exchange. It is no wonder that the economy is at the point of critical mass as the government are persecuting the white managers of the mining industry, bringing closures to mines; the occupation of farms by illegal squatters has ruined commercial farming; and tourism is down by 60 per cent.
	The Land Acquisition Act 1992 gave the government of Zimbabwe power to acquire land for redistribution and provided for compensation. In 1998, a programme for land redistribution and alleviation of poverty was presented and an inception plan was agreed by donors, landowners and the government. It is essential that this programme starts up again, as it hardly got off the ground. In June of last year, the Land Acquisition Act was amended to allow the acquisition of farms, with compensation to be paid only for improvements. In December, Mugabe stated in an address that over the past six months 2,540 out of a requirement of 3,000 farms, covering around 12 million hectares, which would resettle around 162,000 black families, had been listed for compulsory acquisition. This equates to around 80 per cent of the land owned by commercial farmers. Some 1,600 farms contain illegal squatters who have been responsible for the murder of seven white farmers and for some 2,400 cases of brutal assault. Mugabe has repeatedly supported these squatters and refused to act in accordance with two high court rulings that ordered their eviction by the police, declaring that the seizure of white-owned farms was illegal. The land seizure programme has violated property rights, denied farmers the full protection of the law and ignored legislation offering due notice of eviction.
	In conclusion, the critical situation existing in Zimbabwe is because Mugabe is determined to ensure that ZANU-PF remains in power and wins the presidential election using the most brutal and repressive systems to achieve this. The descent into totalitarianism, combined with attacks on minority white people, is not simply the breakdown of civil society, as seen elsewhere in Africa; it is a calculated entrenchment of a man who believes that he is above the law. Furthermore, recognition of Mugabe by President Chirac of France, the Belgian Prime Minister and EU politicians is abhorrent and in no way helps towards a return to democracy in Zimbabwe.
	The one country that can apply pressure to bring about a return to democracy in Zimbabwe is South Africa, through its trading, economic and political weight. President Mbeki believes that this is an African problem and should be resolved only by African countries. However, there is no desire within other African countries to resolve this desperate situation and, in any event, they are more or less incapable of doing so. President Mbeki should distance himself from Mugabe. If he does not do so and does not bring his economic and political weight to bear, the United Kingdom should bring pressure to bear on South Africa to do so. The time has come for sanctions to be applied by the Commonwealth, the EU and the UN in condemnation of Mugabe's policies and for Zimbabwe to be suspended from the Commonwealth.

The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I, too, would like to share in the appreciation shown to the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, for initiating this debate. The deep involvement of the Christian Church in the history of Southern Africa and especially in the struggle to overturn apartheid means that we have deep bonds of affection with many of its peoples.
	Indeed, the emergence of South Africa from the history of apartheid is a quite remarkable story. I remember visiting South Africa in 1989 where, from a conference of over two dozen Anglicans meeting from all over the world in Harare, only four were allowed to enter South Africa in that year. Anglican clergy were not welcome in South Africa in those days. But less than a year later, what had seemed out of the question in 1989 had happened; Nelson Mandela was free and a new journey seemed possible. I am reminded of the Old Testament image of evil empires which present themselves as powerful and strong, but often have feet of clay and come crashing down when least expected.
	Noble Lords will forgive me if I focus my remarks on South Africa, because I believe that that country is the key to peace and stability in the region. There are two issues on which I should like to comment. The first concerns governance in South Africa. For those of us who have enjoyed the benefits of western and European political histories, and especially for us here in Britain, it would be easy to underestimate the struggle involved in moving a nation from one history to another. In this country, freedom, justice and peace, established in institutions of law and government, are taken for granted. But when you have lived through generations of oppression, cultures are created which will not be shifted overnight. In South Africa, for the lifetime of many of its peoples, the law, together with its officers, was understood as threat and danger; government as the enemy; and the structures of the state as the incarnation of injustice. So people grew up in a mode of resistance; their dignity preserved in spite of the structures of governance.
	On the day that Nelson Mandela was released, at a service in church to celebrate his freedom, I remember the leader of the local anti-apartheid movement sharing with me how deep would be the cultural shift from resistance and opposition to reconstruction and responsible government. I want to hear that support and solidarity are being offered to the emerging institutions of the new South Africa as it makes this profound cultural shift.
	Faith communities and the Churches, in particular, education and schools and the reshaping of the structures of law and order, all have a crucial part to play in effecting that change. I believe that the United Kingdom has a special responsibility to support South Africa in making this change of culture and in ensuring that the processes now being embodied in its governance are rooted in the cultures of its people.
	The second issue upon which I want to comment concerns the peace of the region. It is not long ago that the collapse of the old South Africa went hand in hand with the end of the war in Namibia and the civil war in Mozambique--a good reminder that justice and freedom are the best guarantors of peace. We all know that peace and stability in South Africa are the keys to peace in the whole of Africa and, indeed, will have an influence on the wider world.
	We need to play our part in helping to shape all of this. If peace, justice and freedom are to spread northwards from South Africa, it will not happen by accident. Indeed, if we do not recognise the importance of this, we might fail to take the action needed to hold the gains that we have made in South Africa itself. Many noble Lords have spoken of the troubles northward in Zimbabwe. The future of South Africa has to lie in peace and justice shared across the cultural histories of its many peoples.
	That is tough enough for South Africa, but to watch the attacks on human rights and a growing culture of violence, lawlessness and political abuse in Zimbabwe--a nation with huge material and human resources--is not only tragic but deeply dangerous. Settling old scores of perceived injustices by vigilante action, by undermining the rule of law and preventing the processes of democratic freedom, will not only damage that country but threatens to spill over into the whole region. Many of us find the sight of the President of Zimbabwe touring Europe seeking support, with little or no public challenge, somewhat unacceptable.
	We surely have to shut the door on those ways of handling the issues of power and of social and economic justice. We need to be aware that the peoples of South Africa are seeking to establish a political culture which is going in the opposite direction to what is happening in Zimbabwe.
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, very helpfully reminded us, Zimbabwe is caught up in the conflict in the Congo and, through that, in Angola. We cannot leave South Africa to work for peace in the region on its own. The international community needs to be much more active and committed in the endeavour to cut off the profits of the diamond trade which are feeding war in the region, and at pressing for peace, democracy and justice. Backing up the gains that the people of South Africa have made by extending their virtues progressively further into the continent of Africa is the task.
	I sometimes question the energies of the international community; the comparative energy that we put into, for example, the issues of the Balkans, Iraq and the Middle East, over and against the commitment that we have to root out war and injustice in Central Africa. Is the international community doing enough to support peace, justice and freedom in this region by vigorously tackling these areas of conflict?
	South Africa is a new democracy. It has made remarkable strides from a bitter and oppressive past. New things need nurturing and feeding. It needs investment and the committed support of the international community in establishing these values more widely in the region. Upon its success depends so much for Africa as a whole. That is why we take these issues for granted at our peril.

Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, the perceptive introduction to this timely debate of the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, and an array of distinguished speakers, leaves little more to say--and even that has been said.
	However, I should like to take issue a little with the implications of the title of the debate. I know that noble Lords do not think so, but to read many of our newspapers you would think that Southern Africa--indeed, the whole of Africa--was one country in a uniformly bad way. Headlines like "Africa's Plight" in the Financial Times or, the week before last, the Economist's "Africa's Elusive Dawn" do a disservice to reality.
	The countries of Southern Africa are very different. For instance, the World Bank thinks that Botswana's high growth rates could significantly reduce poverty within a decade. When I was in Botswana, I noticed that it was the Botswana Government who paid for outside expertise, not aid. Their diamond revenues were funding a range of employment developments.
	Botswana also ranks high, with South Africa, on the respected Freedom House index of democratic governance and has a top ranking, with Namibia, in the World Economic Forum's Africa Competitiveness Report. Zimbabwe, in contrast, as noble Lords will well understand, is now nearly at the bottom.
	In the important UNDP Human Development Index, which shows quality of life measures such as life expectancy, adult literacy rates and school enrolment, as well as GDP, South Africa, Namibia, Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland were all up in the "medium" bracket, higher, for instance, than Ghana or India. That is in the report for the year 2000, although some figures will have been collected earlier, and AIDS, as noble Lords have said, will have made inroads since then.
	I recognise the extreme lack of democracy in Swaziland, vividly described by my noble friend Lord Brett, but my own acquaintance with some of the countries of sub-Saharan Africa has shown me that you can have good government with good policies--and even a loyal opposition--and yet not reach economic take-off. Economic development is impeded not only by the spread of disease, as noble Lords have said, but also by outside factors, including power imbalances, which even good governments cannot counter. This is where the international community has a role.
	Among the important power imbalances are tariffs and subsidies. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol spoke powerfully about subsidies. Tariffs are said to be four-times higher for a developing country exporter than for one in a developed country. So it is very welcome that the World Bank's new chief economist is, I understand, planning to cost the whole tariff regime for poor countries. Let us hope that that is a prelude to action. It is also very good news that the European Union Council of Ministers agreed, on 26th February, the quota and duty-free "Everything but Arms" initiative--or, at least, everything but arms, bananas, rice and sugar, until 2009. It is a start. One might say that the EU does better in trade than aid for the developing world.
	The cost of drugs and vaccines, together with the role of patent protection, has the most serious consequences, as many noble Lords have said. I, too, welcome the decisions taken last week by my right honourable friend Gordon Brown to set up a global purchase fund for drugs and vaccines and also to provide tax incentives for research on the fatal diseases of the poorest regions. This comes alongside UN challenges to monopolies over drug prices and patents in other parts of the developing world.
	There is more joined-up international action. My right honourable friend Clare Short's achievement of untying British aid is now being promulgated in the OECD. Britain and Italy, as joint chairs of G7, aim to influence the World Bank and the IMF towards poverty reduction as the key objective, rather than low inflation and a balanced budget, responsible for harmful public expenditure cuts in the past. Is it not also time for serious consideration of a Tobin-type tax to finance development through currency transactions, on the Canadian model?
	There are of course barriers that are internal to some of the countries of Southern Africa themselves, as has been eloquently described by noble Lords. But we do well to remember that the countries of Southern Africa are different from each other; that there are those that are more suitable for investment than the private sector, so fond of mining and oil extraction, recognises. For others, there remains a need to press for more concerted international action to remove barriers to development--at the IMF and World Bank meeting in April, G7 in July and the UN Children's Summit in September. I hope that my noble friend the Minister can tell us what the Government will be aiming for at these key international decision points.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, for initiating this debate. However, I feel that he needs to be slightly rebuked for making the debate so inclusive and so wide-ranging that it will be difficult for the Minister to answer comprehensively.
	Many issues have been discussed this evening, including floods, AIDS and Zimbabwe. However, an issue that was not perhaps touched upon was the refugee situation in Guinea. As I did not write my speech with the knowledge that I would be covering areas that had already been mentioned, I should like to begin with a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker of Wallasey, which reflects some of the views expressed in a debate in this place five years ago on the Great Lakes, when we considered the abyss into which Zaire, after its collapse, was about to plunge. I raise the issue because I do not believe that anyone at that time even contemplated the disastrous effect that the civil war would have in actually sucking in other countries. I do not suppose that anyone in this Chamber would have believed that troops from Angola, South Africa and Zimbabwe would be engaged in that conflict. Having worked with soldiers in Zimbabwe when I lived there, I find it difficult to believe that they would be happy with that situation.
	The peace process as regards the Lusaka Accord is not an issue that can be ignored. I believe that the international community will have to act in this respect. I very much support the view put forward by the noble Baroness that, until the situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo is addressed, the humanitarian crisis that affects the whole region will carry on. This is a very strange civil war because the enormous resources in the Congo mean that this is a conflict that is actually self-sustaining. People are benefiting from the continued conflict. I was particularly made aware of this by a recent article that highlighted not only the humanitarian crisis but also the fact that participants from all sides have started occupying areas that did not previously have human inhabitants--for example, some of the national parks--so that the very existence of the lowland guerrillas is now in question. Indeed, they could become extinct due to this crisis.
	Mention has also been made of Mozambique. While discussing the floods in the area, perhaps I may welcome the prompt action taken by the DfID. Many questions were asked last year as to why the DfID did not act sooner; indeed, there was that rather unfortunate debate over who should fund the helicopters that were to be sent to the region. The fact that two Puma helicopters have been rented--which makes logistical sense--from the South African Government and are already in operation, soon to be followed by a further six helicopters, will make a considerable difference. However, I do not believe that the scale of the catastrophe can be overlooked. A hundred people have already lost their lives, with over half a million being affected. I believe that riot police and troops have been used to move people out of the area. Having working in Mozambique, I can understand the need for troops, because we are dealing with people who have lost everything. Indeed, when they return to rebuild their lives, even the most basic necessities, such as a sheet of tin, are seen as very valuable commodities.
	There is one further issue that should be raised as regards the floods in Mozambique. Although we are talking about a national disaster, the majority of the rainfall has not fallen within the borders of Mozambique; it has actually fallen in Malawi, Zimbabwe and Zambia. The overflow of the Kariba dam is a real issue because it flows into the Cabora Bassa. This could force the flood gates to be opened on Cabora Bassa and thus add to the problem.
	The issue of AIDS has been mentioned. Indeed, 35 million people in Africa now suffer from AIDS. Four million--an extremely high figure--of those sufferers are to be found in South Africa. When I worked in South Africa back in 1991, there was little mention of AIDS. It was seen as a problem that did not affect South Africa, so not a great deal of work was carried out in that respect. Indeed, it was rife in the township, but due to the political system it was overlooked. Obviously this is no longer the case. The legacy of that inaction is that one in five of the young people in South Africa will not live to attain the age of 15 years. Indeed, the workforce will shrink by 17 per cent. AIDS in the whole of Africa has a disproportionate effect on the educated and those with skills. That is devastating for economies that need such people.
	The issue of generic drugs has been raised. I believe that the pharmaceutical companies have discussed discounts, but discounted drugs will not meet the need due to the fact that they are too expensive for the budgets of many of the developing countries in Africa. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol has already said that debt relief is crippling the economies of those countries. I believe that future generations will feel a degree of anger that more money is being spent on debt relief than on health budgets. Perhaps it is not too much of an exaggeration to say that in the future many involved with these matters will be labelled with the term "genocide" as millions of people are being denied the means to fight this terrible infection.
	I find it particularly galling that the pharmaceutical industry has retained every single patent lawyer who works in South Africa to fight its case against the South African Government on generic drugs. Given that a case should be based on the body of evidence produced by experts on each side, it is perhaps worrying that all those who have knowledge of this difficult area of law are being retained by the side with the most money. Will the British Government consider sending lawyers with expertise in patent law to balance the arguments?
	The issue that has been mentioned most often this evening is that of Zimbabwe. We on these Benches support the measured, calm and constructive approach of the Government on that matter. As a member of the Opposition, I do not believe that the Zimbabwean Government can claim that the sentiments I express are those of the Government. I mention that because of the rather strange incident that occurred in Brussels the other day when Mr Peter Tatchell attempted a citizen's arrest on Mr Robert Mugabe, the President of Zimbabwe. The Zimbabwean Government claimed that Mr Tatchell was a member of the British secret services. I ask the Minister whether Mr Peter Tatchell is a member of the secret services. If he is, I believe that we need to consider the way in which they operate.
	Sanctions against Zimbabwe have been called for. I do not believe that that is an option. The DfID's work, which accounts for the majority of the £6 million aid budget we give to Zimbabwe, is very focused on AIDS and humanitarian relief. To cut that budget would hurt the people of Zimbabwe.
	I have seen at first hand the repression meted out in that country. It is not a new problem in Zimbabwe. I assume I am the only person in this Chamber who has attended a ZANU-PF political rally. I did not do so through choice. That occurred back in 1991, when Nelson Mandela, having been released from prison, made a speech in Zimbabwe. Halfway through his speech most of the audience got up and--

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I think that I have credentials too. I was denounced on Salisbury radio in the Smith regime as a traitor and a communist because I was in regular touch with ZANU and ZAPU and I was responsible for exfiltrating, in fact, smuggling, out of the Congo a ZANU leader who later, I am grateful to say, gave me credit for that in a book. The noble Lord should always remember that a great many people have roots in Africa.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I shall treasure the image of the noble Baroness as a communist. As I was saying, halfway through Nelson Mandela's speech everyone left to travel on their free buses. I asked people why they were leaving. The majority said that they had been transported to the rally on free buses and that if they did not go then the buses would depart. I stayed on to hear Mr Mandela's absolutely fantastic speech in which he referred to racial tolerance. I then left as the ZANU-PF rally turned into rather a rant. However, I discovered that the police had been told to allow no one to leave the stadium until after the ZANU-PF rally had finished. There were approximately 3,000 people in the stadium listening to the rally and 5,000 people were crammed within the perimeter fence having been told they were not allowed to leave until the president had finished speaking. That gave an illustration of the police misusing their powers back in 1991.
	Another issue I wish to mention is the disgusting treatment of Chief Justice Gubbay, a man who has devoted his professional life to the cause of justice and racial equality both during the Rhodesian regime and also during the term of the present Zimbabwean Government. There have been disgraceful attacks on Chief Justice Gubbay in Parliament. These attacks have been both racial and anti-Semitic in their motivation. The judgments of Chief Justice Gubbay have had enormous significance across the Commonwealth, not just in Zimbabwe, and his judgments have influenced the decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in this country and the Canadian Supreme Court. Chief Justice Gubbay has stood up for the rule of law. It will be interesting to note whether his replacement will also stand up for the rule of law or will illustrate the complete collapse of judicial independence. If that is the case, I think that Britain, working with her partners in the UN, the international community and the Commonwealth will have to take certain measures, although I believe that those measures are probably under way. I accept that the European Union had to engage in dialogue before action could be taken. However, I believe that any action that is taken in the future will have the support of everyone in this House.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, thanks to the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, we have had a feast of experience and knowledge deployed on this subject this afternoon. I was particularly glad that my noble friend Lady Chalker of Wallasey was able to contribute to the debate because her knowledge of this whole region is second to none.
	In the few minutes allocated to me, I shall concentrate on two areas. I shall refer to South Africa, because I share the view expressed in the remarkable speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford that it is the key to the prosperity of the whole region. Inevitably, I shall have something to say on Zimbabwe, because that is where the infection lies that could destroy the whole region. I shall return to the notable speeches of my noble friends Lady Park of Monmouth and Lord Vivian and the remarks they made in that regard. I shall have to devote some minutes to Zimbabwe because I find incomprehensible the silence of the Government in the face of the events in recent days. I find the actions in recent days of European Union officials and our partners in the European Union quite outrageous.
	I shall mention those matters in due course. However, I shall start on a more positive note. Looking at the great, fantastic and beautiful country of South Africa there is much to be thankful for in terms of what has happened and much to be grateful for in terms of what has not happened. The great utilities and industries of South Africa have adapted and survived. The extraordinary patience of the people of South Africa through all that they have been through--still now they are possibly not getting some of the benefits that were promised by the more enthusiastic politicians when the horror of apartheid came to an end--always amazes me every time I visit the country.
	There has not been the civil war between the Inkatha and the rest of the country that many experts thought would occur. I remember Sir Laurens van der Post (sadly now deceased) telling me that he thought a civil war inevitable. It has not happened; that is wonderful. There has been the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, driven forward by giants like Bishop Tutu and Nelson Mandela. As I see how that has worked, I ponder whether that is a preferable model in trying to heal the horrors and scars of the past to the habit--it seems rather widespread--of opening up every conceivable scar, digging into every conceivable past horror and difficulty, and demanding apologies here, there and everywhere. Some say that that is necessary, but it can be carried too far. I suspect that the approach of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is the better one.
	If one is continuing in this optimistic vein, there are signs that the horrific level of crime is being somewhat curbed. Someone suggested to me recently that central Johannesburg, which had become a byword for crime and violence, was beginning to improve.
	What we know to be a great country has come through enormous trials, prospering in some ways although not in others. It is a country we should be proud to visit and anxious to help, and through help to South Africa to bring prosperity and stability to the whole region.
	I come now to the "buts". The first "but" is that the mood of reconciliation is somewhat fragile and could be fading. There is talk of "re-racialising" in South Africa, of two nations, and other grim, divisive thoughts which were not intended by Nelson Mandela and others. He has made some strong remarks recently which must cause worry to all South Africa's friends. He said:
	"Little did we suspect that our own people, when they got the chance, would be as corrupt as the apartheid regime".
	That is a pretty chilling remark from one of the great men of the world. I hope that it will make members of the ANC, and others who may have been too complacent, realise that grave dangers could threaten all that has been achieved.
	The plague of AIDS has been eloquently referred to by many speakers, and the curious comments of President Mbeki, which seem to hold things back. I hope that that can be sorted out; but the shadow of AIDS is horrific.
	The unhappiest aspect is that the jobs have not materialised. There is unemployment on a massive scale in that whole country. The official figure is, I believe, 25 per cent. Some say that it is as high as 36 per cent. The labour force is growing at 2.2 per cent a year. As the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, and others said, growth of 6 per cent is needed. We are not getting that kind of growth in Europe and certainly not in South Africa or Southern Africa. A huge uplift in the dynamism of South Africa--and one hopes, then, of southern Africa--is needed even to keep matters as they are and to match the growth in the labour force.
	There are some positive and some negative factors. The Finance Minister of South Africa, Trevor Manuel, is an excellent appointment--a very able man. He has imbued in the international community a feeling that the South African economy, within severe constraints, is well run. He is pressing forward with a reform agenda. He is pursuing a privatisation programme. Although not everyone may agree that that is right, I believe it is the right way forward for the southern African economy. Labour market reforms are being pursued. The budget was well received last month.
	However, on the negative side, there is the poor level of job creation to which I referred, the high level of crime, regional political instability and the danger that that could damage South Africa's chances of hosting the 2006 World Cup. Hosting that event would be a great triumph for South Africa and bring in many resources.
	There is the problem of foreign investment. That takes me to the infection--the sadder side of what we have been debating today. The mood of international investors has been severely damaged by what has been going on in Zimbabwe. Foreign investment and open trade are the keys. I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol that, while aid is well meaning and, if well targeted, can do wonderful things, it is a small consideration compared with the driving force of creation of wealth from open markets, access to the markets of the world and a good and steady flow of foreign investment into the country. We should heed the new doctrines which are beginning to circulate: that the driving force for development in countries like South Africa has to be the creation of local capital. It cannot come from outside aid.
	Hernando de Soto, the Peruvian statesman, argues with increasing vigour that the key to wealth generation in these countries is the creation of property rights, and the atmosphere of justice and the rule of law. Local capital can be generated and turned into wealth. Without the property rights and the guarantee that the house you live in is yours--it does not belong to some mafia or gangster and cannot be taken from you--there can be no real take-off, however much is put into these countries. That applies to small businesses. De Soto tells us of the appalling bureaucratic burdens which stand in the way of small businesses. He quotes some amazing figures: that in South Africa and many other southern African countries it takes 63 days to get a small business started, with reams of forms. It is not aid but property, laws and the rule of justice which are the keys to development.
	I come now to the agonising business of Zimbabwe, where there is murder afoot, as we have seen. My noble friend Lady Park reminded us that it is not just a question of white settlers and white farmers. It is a hideous assault. Tens of thousands of black farm workers and others are being dispossessed. The stirring up of the internal patterns of Zimbabwean society is designed to turn man against man, woman against woman and family against family in a most appalling way. I find it extraordinary that in recent days there has been a remarkable silence from the Her Majesty's Government in face of the attacks on judges, the undermining of the rule of law, and the systematic encouragement of murder and torture. This cannot be right. I urge Her Majesty's Government to think again about their approach to these issues.
	I find it outrageous that the European Union officials saw fit to give official welcome to Mr Mugabe. I agree with The Times leader that the meeting of Commissioner Nielson sent a wrong signal to Harare, Africa and EU leaders. Sure enough, the morning after Harare was claiming that this was a blow to Britain and another triumph for President Mugabe. I understand vaguely the Belgian motives in wanting to keep contact. The decision of the French president to give the red carpet to this man with blood on his hands was most unfortunate and flies straight in the face of the solidarity and idealism which are required if we are to have a common European foreign policy. It makes a mockery of the very concept.
	The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, who has enormous experience of these issues, raised the difficult question about whether dismissal from the Commonwealth would be right at this stage. I had not thought earlier that it would. However, we have now reached the stage where the Commonwealth has to stand up and be counted. There has to be a definite view that Zimbabwe should be pushed out of the Commonwealth unless there is a sign that it will mend its ways. At least that dialogue should be set in motion.
	As regards our role, we are always claiming--and I have certainly claimed from this side of the House-- that we are wonderfully placed because we are members of so many international groups such at the IMF, the UN, the European Union, OECD and others. Are not these the forums in which we should be stating the facts now before us? Are not these the forums in which alone we cannot work miracles but we can at least arouse international opinion and co-operation to bring pressure on this man to cease decivilising and wrecking his country? One tries not to feel too strongly on these matters, but we should feel strongly indeed, because we are seeing a hideous tragedy unfold which could poison the whole of South Africa. Ever since I first went to South Africa--

The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, will the noble Lord kindly give way for one minute? I shall be most interested to know whether, if he were leading the Conservative Party and entering a dialogue with President Mugabe of Zimbabwe, he would be prepared to meet him personally, because that is the dilemma facing the European leaders.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, any speculation about me leading the Conservative Party is pretty remote and I shall not pursue that. I do not believe that I would wish to welcome him and give him any official credence whatsoever at this stage. It is deeply regrettable and inexcusable that that has been done.
	I conclude by saying that I have always had the most profound hope that South Africa would rise and prosper--it can do so--where black and white and all the other races would mingle as they have done in many other societies in the past. But for me that hope trembles at the moment because I believe that a much firmer line is required in relation to the horrors of Zimbabwe. Until one sees that, the whole picture is threatened.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, for initiating this very important debate. Its quality has been enhanced by the knowledge and expertise of all noble Lords who have participated. Many noble Lords have mentioned the challenges facing the countries of southern Africa. In particular, there is poverty, conflict, HIV/AIDS, lack of investment and growth, corruption and a lack of transparency and accountability.
	But there are also opportunities in southern Africa which did not exist five years ago. There are opportunities for creating peace and stability; for using the region's rich natural resources and for unleashing the talents of its people. There are opportunities to revitalise its infrastructure, harness information technology and to encourage foreign investment. These opportunities must be harnessed to create economic growth so that the region can raise the living standards of all its people.
	Growth rates in southern Africa have been disappointing, but higher growth rates are achievable. As my noble friend Lady Whitaker said, Botswana has experienced an average growth rate of 9.2 per cent in the past five years, building on 30 years of stability and growth. Mozambique has generated an average growth rate of 11 per cent since 1997.
	I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, that future growth rates in southern Africa will be heavily dependent on expanding trade and attracting investment. Southern African countries are pushing forward to create a free trade area within SADC. My noble friend Lady Whitaker and other noble Lords, raised the issue of tariff barriers. The creation of a free trade area within SADC commits those countries to a substantial programme of reducing tariff and non-tariff barriers which currently deter investment. Creating the conditions for investment and growth, including open markets for products from southern African countries, and encouraging African producers to identify and take advantage of trade opportunities, is vital.
	As many noble Lords have said, involvement in conflict remains a huge barrier for development in many countries in Africa. It is a human tragedy, with devastating effects on services, an enormous loss of infrastructure, a reduction in investment and an increased debt burden. I agreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, when they spoke about the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The war there is not only causing destruction and despair in the Great Lakes region, but it could also threaten stability more widely on the African continent. As noble Lords have mentioned, five other countries and numerous rebel groups have already been drawn into what has been called Africa's first world war.
	However, the new president, Joseph Kabila, has said that he wants to implement the Lusaka peace accord and start the inter-Congolese dialogue which is intended to lead eventually to more inclusive government. At a meeting in New York on 21st and 22nd February, agreement was reached between the Security Council and the signatories at Lusaka on a realistic start date for the disengagement of forces in the DRC. Planning a full withdrawal of all foreign forces will follow. We will continue to hold all parties to the commitments they made in New York.
	Many noble Lords raised the issue of Zimbabwe's involvement in the DRC conflict. We are extremely concerned about the level of spending on defence by the Zimbabwean government, largely as a result of their own involvement in the DRC conflict. Zimbabwe's economy will not be able to start the recovery process while defence spending remains high. We continue to urge its government and the other combatants in the DRC conflict to work towards implementation of the Lusaka peace agreement.
	The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked me specifically about the security of the NGOs in the eastern DRC. It is clearly a matter of concern. We hope that the security of NGOs will be taken into account in discussions on the planned withdrawal among the UN and the parties to the conflict. We will be discussing all aspects of the conflict, including security issues, with Joseph Kabila when he is in the United Kingdom.
	I say to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford that we are committed to supporting, with the international community, a comprehensive framework for conflict prevention in Africa which will encompass conflict prevention, reduction, resolution and peace-building. The United Nations has a crucial role in peace-keeping and peace-building. Regional structures within Africa will also remain a key element in any security framework.
	The United Kingdom is working to improve the coherence between our foreign policy, military and development objectives. We are increasing our support for security sector reform, the tightening of controls over United Kingdom arms exports and pushing for tighter international controls on small arms and uncertified diamonds from conflict regions.
	The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, commented on allegations of illegal arms sales from French companies to the Angolan government. We are aware of these allegations, but it is a matter for the French government. The noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, spoke of the impact of what he called "lucrative spoils"--diamonds--on the conflict in the region. The noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, also spoke about that. Conflict diamonds account for less than four per cent of world trade in rough diamonds. Nevertheless, it is vital that action is taken to deny market access to illegally mined diamonds, the proceeds of which fuel bitter civil war in places such as Angola.
	Southern African countries took the lead last year in promoting an inter-governmental process which also included industry and civil society. The Kimberley process, as it is known, helped to formulate a resolution last December in the UN General Assembly calling for an international certification scheme for rough diamonds. Many details are still to be resolved, but I hope that progress can be made over the coming months so that the next session of the UN General Assembly in the autumn will be able to endorse an agreed international scheme.
	The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked me about the monitoring mechanism on Angola sanctions. We shall continue to work with our UN partners to ensure that monitoring of the sanctions regime against UNITA is as effective as possible.
	I now turn to Zimbabwe. The noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, set out very clearly the economic, social and human rights issues facing Zimbabwe. Other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, the noble Lords, Lord Vivian and Lord Howell of Guildford, and many others, spoke powerfully about what is happening in Zimbabwe.
	Zimbabwe has the potential to be a powerhouse for economic development in the region, yet we see its stability threatened by economic mismanagement and by policies which owe more to the short-term goal of political survival than to the longer-term development needs of its people. The current fast-track land resettlement strategy is undermining agricultural productivity and threatens the livelihoods of more people than it is likely to help.
	Noble Lords have mentioned the attempts of the Zimbabwe Government to intimidate their political opponents and their judges, to ignore court rulings and to silence criticism in the independent media. Those are all symptoms of a floundering regime.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, mentioned the Commonwealth Brisbane meeting and the question of Zimbabwe's continuing membership of the Commonwealth. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, spoke of that sanction as a last deterrent. The noble Lord, Lord Vivian, said that Zimbabwe should be suspended from the Commonwealth and the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, said that he had changed his mind and now felt that Zimbabwe should leave the Commonwealth.
	Action against a country that flouts the principles of the Harare declaration can be taken only in certain narrowly defined circumstances, mainly the unconstitutional overthrow of the legitimate government. The limitation of the Commonwealth mandate to unconstitutional overthrow is too restrictive. That is why we support an expansion of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group's role to cover a wider range of sanctions.
	I must point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and to the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, that we have taken action. For example, we imposed a national arms embargo in May last year. Given the deteriorating situation in Zimbabwe, the Foreign Secretary announced the withdrawal of the British Military Advisory and Training Team from Harare to London at the end of March.
	The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, talked about harassment of the judiciary. We should share the concerns expressed by the UN special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers. He said:
	"The Government of Zimbabwe must comply with its obligations under international standards and stop harassing and pressurising members of the judiciary".

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the most senior judges of the South African constitutional court, led by its president, Arthur Chaskelson, who is a former ANC lawyer, have joined in that condemnation publicly, as has Judge Richard Goldstone, a former special prosecutor? Senior judges from across the Commonwealth are also condemning the subversion of the rule of law in Zimbabwe.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am aware of that.
	My noble friend Lord Hughes said that there was a strong case for land redistribution. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, also spoke about the need for land reform. We have consistently said that we would support a land reform programme that was transparent, fair and cost-effective and formed part of a wider Zimbabwe Government programme to reduce poverty, as agreed by the Government of Zimbabwe at the 1998 land conference. We are working with civil society and private sector representatives to support independent land reform initiatives that meet those principles. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, asked particularly about the United Nations Development Programme land initiative. We welcome the Secretary-General's efforts to seek a sound way forward for land resettlements in Zimbabwe. However, we understand that the Government have yet to respond to proposals made by UNDP to the President in November last year.
	I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, who has much experience in these matters, that we must maintain and push the dialogue in Zimbabwe. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, that we and our EU partners favour a critical dialogue with the Zimbabwe Government within a tight time frame. President Mugabe's recent meetings in Europe were an opportunity for EU member states to bring home to him the seriousness of Zimbabwe's current situation.
	I remind noble Lords that Zimbabwe has an elected Government. It is a matter of real urgency that President Mugabe and the Government of Zimbabwe turn from the course on which they are embarked and reaffirm the primacy of the rule of law, the institutions of democracy and the fundamental right of freedom of expression.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, did the President of France raise those issues with President Mugabe? There did not seem to be many reports about it.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord a readout of President Mugabe's meeting with the President of France. I can talk only about the more general meetings in the EU context when President Mugabe went to Brussels.
	I know that the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, does not really expect me to respond to his question about Peter Tatchell.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, according to an AFP report, President Chirac called for solutions based on respect for the law, so he entered into the dialogue in the spirit that we have all suggested.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that intervention.
	The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, and my noble friend Lord Hughes of Woodside all talked about the current problems in Mozambique. My noble friend Lord Hughes asked what is happening. The current problems stem from the release of excess water from the Kariba dam in Zimbabwe. That flows into the Cahora Bassa dam. Carefully controlled releases from Cahora Bassa have been made to prevent the flooding of the Zambezi downstream, as the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said.
	Our contingency planning as a result of last year's flooding and the fact that we remained engaged with Mozambique have proved beneficial. Our response to the floods includes the funding of two Puma helicopters, as the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said. Those helicopters are moving people from the riskiest areas and transporting urgent relief supplies. We are also providing support to the World Food Programme to assist its operational response and providing a humanitarian specialist to reinforce our presence on the ground.
	Noble Lords will be aware that we are committed to giving greater attention to supporting systems of governance that underpin the ability of a government to implement economic, social and environmental policies and to manage public expenditure effectively. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, that to succeed we have to tackle corruption and strengthen civil society pressures for accountability for public service delivery. My noble friend Lord Brett addressed the governance and labour unrest situation in Swaziland. The UK regularly discusses human rights issues with the Swazi Government. In addition, we recently raised human rights in Swaziland within the EU. Trade union rights were considered in that context. The EU is considering sending a troika mission to Swaziland later this year.
	The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford spoke about governance issues in South Africa and the difficult process of reshaping structures and institutions in that country. The department's programme in South Africa includes support for public service reform and institutional transformation. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that we agreed to double our share going to the poorest provinces in South Africa in 1999. I can write to the noble Earl with further details on that if that would be helpful.
	The noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol, the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford and others mentioned the HIV/AIDS crisis, which is a key challenge for Southern Africa. We and other donors are working to support governments in checking the spread of the epidemic, establishing systems of care for those affected and addressing the wider social and economic impact of the disease. So far, HIV/AIDS transmission rates show only slight signs of subsiding. However, evidence from other countries--notably Uganda, which was mentioned by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, and by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol--demonstrates that with committed political leadership a multi-sectoral response can reduce new infections. The personal attention that is paid to those issues by President Museveni is extremely useful.
	On the question of drugs and pharmaceutical companies, my noble friends Lord Hughes of Woodside and Lady Whitaker, the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and other noble Lords made reference to the legal case taken against the South African Government by companies over South Africa's medicines legislation. The United Kingdom Government are actively involved in helping to improve poor people's access to healthcare, including essential drugs, in South Africa and elsewhere.
	A major issue involves the way in which investment in the research and development of drugs and vaccines for the diseases of the poor, such as malaria and TB, as well as HIV/AIDS may be increased. Currently, only 10 per cent of global health research funds are dedicated to the 90 per cent of the global disease burden that affects the poorest. The Government have set up a major study into global health issues, which will report within the next few months.
	My noble friends Lord Hughes of Woodside and Lady Whitaker and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol referred to the announcement by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He trailed the proposal in the international child poverty conference on 26th February and announced it this afternoon in the Budget. He announced the creation of a new and special tax credit as an incentive to accelerate research into diseases such as AIDS, TB and malaria. He also announced that Britain will take the lead in establishing a new purchase fund for global health that will develop new life-saving drugs and make existing drugs more widely available.
	The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol asked about TRIPS. The Government's position on TRIPS is set out in our recent White Paper on globalisation. We believe that developing countries need intellectual property protection as a way of encouraging more investment, research and innovation, from which they should benefit. For that reason we support the TRIPS agreement, which requires countries to provide minimum standards of intellectual property protection. We are committed to monitoring the impact of TRIPS on poor people's access to drugs.
	The right reverend Prelate also asked about debt relief. By the end of last year, 22 countries had qualified for HIPC relief, including three in the region: Mozambique, Malawi and Zambia. Heavily Indebted Poor Countries are developing their national poverty strategies in consultation with civil society, which determines how government resources, including those freed up by debt relief, will be spent in support of poverty reduction. I say to my noble friend Lady Whitaker that the final agenda has yet to be decided for the spring meetings of the IMF and the World Bank.
	Before I conclude, I stress that Africa's commitment to its own development agenda is important. That is captured by the millennium renaissance plan. The noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, said that it is for African governments to resolve African conflicts. African leaders, mandated by the Organisation of African Unity, have developed an initiative to give new impetus to reform and development in their continent. President Mbeki outlined the various priority areas in a speech at Davos. He referred to the importance of creating peace, security and stability, of democratic government and of investing in Africa's people. He also referred to the need to: harness and develop Africa's strategic and comparative advantages in the resource-based sectors; increase investments in the information and communication technology sector; develop infrastructure; and develop financial mechanisms. A key element of the programme is that African countries will be able to join the programme and benefit from its initiatives only if they sign up to its basic principles, including those on democratic governance. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has been very supportive of the initiative and has set up a special unit to work on the British response.
	In conclusion, Africa's leaders are now setting out an agenda for action that demands the support of the international community. To reach the international development targets in Africa--and in southern Africa--will require significant international development assistance. However, African leaders are seeking more than our financial assistance. They see an African future that is designed and built by Africans and founded upon peace, security and stability. They see African growth that is driven by private investment. Above all, they see Africa's future within a global partnership. That is an aim that I hope we all share.

Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for her extensive and detailed reply to the many issues that were raised in this long debate. I make no apology to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for raising many issues. It was inevitable that the debate would be, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, a bit of a Cook's tour around southern Africa. I tried to stress in the wording of the Motion that our debate should not impose a negative spin on the region; it refers to the "challenges facing southern Africa". We have had a balanced debate, which has stressed many of the opportunities and positive features that are associated with the future of southern Africa.
	Our debate has had several core themes. The noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, rightly said that we could have had a completely separate debate on the AIDS/HIV pandemic. The issues raised will, I hope, be used as themes in future debates on this subject. Those issues include the need for accountability and transparency and to address corruption. They also involve calls for constructive dialogue to achieve stability and for more concerted international pressure to be put on the Zimbabwean Government to address abuses of human rights. They also include the need for a negotiated solution to the civil war in the Democratic Republic of Congo, which could act as a catalyst for stability in the region.
	I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this evening's debate for their contributions. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Maximum Number of Judges (NorthernIreland) Order 2001

Lord Bach: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 11th December 2000 be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord Bach: My Lords, the order is solely about the number of High Court judges in Northern Ireland; it is not about their method of appointment or terms of office or about any decisions that they reach when discharging their judicial office. The maximum number of High Court judges in Northern Ireland is prescribed in Section 2 of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978. That statutory maximum was originally set at six and increased to seven in 1993. The purpose of the order is to increase that figure from seven to nine.
	The need for the increase arose primarily from the implementation of the Human Rights Act 1998. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has considered carefully and in consultation with the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland the likely increase in the volume and length of proceedings in consequence of the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law. It is considered that the anticipated additional workload in the High Court in Northern Ireland will be such as to give rise to a need for extra judicial support.
	Some noble Lords will remember that towards the end of 1999 this House approved an increase in the maximum number of High Court judges in England and Wales from 98 to 106. That also took into account anticipated workload pressures in consequence of the Human Rights Act.
	At present, workloads for High Court judges in England and Wales are stable. I am sure that noble Lords will recognise that a provision to enable an increase in the High Court judicial complement is also required in Northern Ireland if the benefits of the Human Rights Act are to be given effect in that jurisdiction.
	If the House gives its approval to the order, and it is made at Privy Council, it will come into force on 2nd April. At that stage, it will allow for the appointment of an additional High Court judge. There are no immediate plans to make a second appointment to the Bench up to the proposed new statutory maximum of nine. However, that will be kept under review. It is considered important that the facility should be available to allow for a second additional appointment should experience demonstrate that to be necessary.
	The Human Rights Act is the fulfilment of the Government's promise to bring home the fundamental rights enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights. We are building a culture in which citizens of this country will be aware of their rights and will have an accessible mechanism for enforcing them.
	Having put that central reform in place through the Human Rights Act, it is essential that we do whatever else is necessary to ensure that the new arrangements will work efficiently. One aspect is having enough senior judges to hear the anticipated increase in the number of lengthy cases. Approval of the order will enable the High Court in Northern Ireland to meet those challenges and to ensure the efficiency and timely disposal of court business. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 11th December 2000 be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].--(Lord Bach.)

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing the order today. I have a few concerns. Obviously, the Government have done their homework and are satisfied that there is a need for more judges. On reading Hansard from the other place, there was a certain amount of toing and froing on fairly irrelevant matters. However, what concerns me relating to the implementation of the Human Rights Act 1998 in Northern Ireland and other places, is that for many years there has been--certainly for as long as I was in business in Northern Ireland-- developing a claims culture well ahead of the remainder of the United Kingdom. The Stormont government will have to pay particular attention to that claims culture in their interpretation of the Human Rights Act.
	I have personal experience of inhibition in business of all kinds of ways because of the growing claims culture. I believe that the culture is starting on this side of the water as well. But we are well ahead over there in the claims culture.
	Having said that, and having made my perhaps rather negative comments on this matter, I support the movement of the order. I am sure that there will be a need for the two extra High Court judges.

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, in supporting the order, I reiterate the point of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that frankly the claims culture in Northern Ireland is bacterial in its growth. I was glad that the Minister was able to offer the assurance that the Bench in Northern Ireland will not be increased without the evidence that it is needed.
	My observation is that the island of Ireland, both north and south, rather like your Lordships' House--if I might say so--is teeming with lawyers. There are far too many of them for the good health of a civic society.
	In that respect, whatever its longitudinal position, the island of Ireland is culturally much nearer to the United States than Great Britain. Increasing lawyers' professional opportunities for preferment serves, in my experience, only to encourage them. I hope that the Minister will reiterate his assurance that expanding the Bench in Northern Ireland will be dealt with in a very parsimonious manner.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful for the support of the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Smith. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, will know from reading Hansard for the other place of the order that the Minister there commented that there had been a 61 per cent increase in judicial review cases in the Northern Ireland courts. Whether that justifies the noble Lord's comment about a claims culture, I could not comment. However, it shows that since normalisation began to take place there has been an increase in business. That is not a bad thing at all. The courts are there to be used by citizens. Where normalisation breaks out, citizens will use the courts in a normal way. But I am very grateful for his support and also that of the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton.
	For a moment I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Smith, was going to link his comment about the number of lawyers in the north and south of Ireland with this House. I took it that he did not because his noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, who is sitting in his place, would be the first to react to such a comment. I believe that this House has exactly the right number of lawyers in it.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government Best Value (Exclusion of Non-commercial Considerations) Order2001

Lord Whitty: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th December 2000 be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord Whitty: My Lords, under the duty of best value, which was set out in the Local Government Act 1999, authorities are required to secure continuous improvements in the way in which they carry out their functions, having regard to a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness.
	Throughout the development of the best value concept, we have stressed the need for good procurement practice. That is why we have looked again at the provisions in Part II of the Local Government Act 1988 in order to modernise them.
	Currently, Part II of the 1988 Act specifies certain matters as "non-commercial" and prohibits authorities from having any regard to these matters in the contractual process. The problem is that the 1988 Act makes no distinction between matters that may be relevant to the value for money of the contract, and thus the best value, and those which are truly irrelevant. That applies particularly to the exclusion of matters relating to the workforce.
	The 1999 Act secured powers to enable us to modify the effect of Part II. Section 19 of that Act provides for the Secretary of State to specify by order, in relation to best value authorities, matters that will cease to be "non-commercial" for the purposes of Part II of the 1988 Act. Section 19(4) requires authorities to have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State on the matter.
	Our consultative paper published in April 2000, was in the form of draft guidance under Section 19(4) and set out how local authorities could address workforce matters in selecting tenderers and awarding contracts once the necessary order under Section 19 is made. Following completion of the consideration of the order, we intend to publish guidance as a departmental circular. Earlier today, copies of the draft circular were placed in the Printed Paper Office.
	Because workforce matters are described as "non-commercial" matters for the purposes of Part II, it could be argued they cannot be considered even where they may be relevant to the performance and value for money of a contract. That, therefore, prevents best value authorities from making a proper assessment of the quality of potential contractors. It also casts doubt on the extent to which government advice on TUPE, as set out in Staff Transfers in the Public Sector: Statement of Practice, published by the Cabinet Office in January 2000, can be applied to local government.
	The proposed order, therefore, provides for relevant workforce matters to cease to be defined as "non-commercial matters" for the purposes of Part II of the 1988 Act. In the Government's view, local authorities will want to be able to consider employment matters, such as staff training, health and safety and management practices, where, for example, they affect directly the cost and quality of services to the extent permitted under the EU Procurement Rules, where appropriate. Both the order and guidance have been developed with the active assistance of local government, employers and trade unions.
	It may be helpful if I set out the main elements of the order. Article 1 provides that the order shall come into force the day after it has been made. It also provides a definition of "public supply or works contracts". Article 2 provides for the order to apply to all best value authorities in England and to police and fire authorities in Wales.
	Article 3 sets out the substance of the order. It provides for certain matters as specified to cease to be non-commercial for the purposes of Section 17 of the 1988 Act. These matters relate to the terms and conditions of the employment, and so on, of a contractor's workforce and to the conduct of contractors or their workers in industrial disputes. However, those matters cease to be non-commercial only in so far as it is expedient or necessary to permit or facilitate compliance with the best value duty under the 1999 Act, or where a transfer of staff takes place, to which the TUPE regulations may apply.
	I can confirm to your Lordships that the order is compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998. I further confirm that it reflects the consensus among the social partners group, the local government private sector and the trade unions. I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th December 2000 be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].--(Lord Whitty.)

Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the purposes of the order. When the order was dealt with in another place, my honourable friend Nigel Waterson endorsed the CBI's view, saying:
	"It is important to be clear that local authorities should not be taking into account those factors that are irrelevant to the cost and quality of service delivery, because that would result in poor value for money in procurement decisions".
	We on these Benches retain strong criticism of the whole best value regime and are pledged to reform it or, if necessary, to abolish it.
	The Government have replaced compulsory competitive tendering with best value. CCT obliged councils to put the provision of many services out to tender to ensure that council services were delivered to local residents in a cost-efficient and high-quality manner. Such competition reduced instances of corruption, over-staffing and restrictive practices in local government. A 1993 Inlogov study showed that CCT had led to average savings of 7 per cent, often accompanied by improvements in service standards. CCT fundamentally changed the culture of local government provision of services for the better.
	I well remember that, before CCT was introduced, every Wednesday the four officers involved in our local refuse collection used to sit in their vehicle outside our house from just after one o'clock until just before three o'clock. When I asked them why, they said, "Well, we can't go back to the depot till three". The fact that they had finished at one o'clock did not seem to count for anything. Therefore, thank goodness, now we appear to have a much cleaner, quicker and more efficient collection.
	We are not against the basic concepts behind best value, but the scheme introduced by the Government under the name of "best value" is flawed. It has led to an excessively bureaucratic, centralising inspectorate regime. The system is so complex that many Labour and Liberal Democrat councils are returning to the bad old days of unchallenged, uncompetitive, in-house awards. Best value is also costly. The LGA has called for an extra £175 million a year in funding for local government because of best value's bureaucratic burdens alone.
	Best value seeks to encourage local authorities to make cost savings, yet it has a target of only 2 per cent efficiencies per year compared to the average 7 per cent that CCT delivered. The publication, Local Government Tenders, commissioned a survey of local authority contracts and tenders. It showed that there had been an astonishing 66 per cent drop in tenders advertised since Labour came to power.
	The next Conservative government will seek to devolve more responsibility and autonomy to local councils away from regional quanqos and Whitehall bureaucrats. Via the ballot box, local electors should reward or punish councils that are succeeding or failing. Councils which are competent and responsible should be subject to a reduced inspectorate and audit regime. Well performing councils should not face extra regulations simply because some councils are inefficient. Systems should be put in place to promote improvements within unresponsive, inept councils, rather than relying on a box-ticking culture to achieve change.
	Some form of inspectorate regime is necessary in order to ensure that councils' performance is transparent to the public. Any inspectorate regime should ensure the delivery of efficient, responsive and cost-effective local services. It should not excessively hinder competent, responsible councils and should not be expensive to administer.
	I want to ask the Minister two questions. Have the Government made any attempt to estimate the potential costs and savings that will result from this order? Specifically, are the extra administrative costs that will result for local authorities believed to be more or less than the value-for-money savings that could accrue? Secondly, will the Minister confirm that, as a result of this order, a local authority will be able to consider a contractor's employment practices only in relation to a specific contract and will not be able to blacklist a contractor from all future council contracts?

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, from these Benches we welcome the order. The noble Baroness reminded us of the days of compulsory competitive tendering. Although I wish to speak to this order rather than generally to the issue of best value and CCT, I cannot help reminding your Lordships and myself that it was the compulsory element in the CCT regime which so many of us found both difficult and offensive.
	Of course, I agree with the noble Baroness that the best-value provision should not be allowed to founder in a mire of bureaucracy and complexity. However, I fail to follow her reasoning that best value is leading us straight back to the days of "in-house provision", as I believe she expressed it. Even if it does so in some cases, I venture to say that sometimes direct labour could be the better method of delivering a service.
	However, I return to this order. Another place spent one-and-a-half hours not being, in the words of the Conservative spokesman, "too protracted" in considering it. They referred at some length to the draft circular, albeit incomplete, as I understood from reading Hansard. I have now seen that circular; at least, I believe that it is the same document. I hope that it is, but the numbering and the page references do not quite seem to tie up. The Minister nods; it is the same document.
	The inclusion of the subject of this order for the purposes of best value is to be, to quote from paragraph 3(a),
	"to the extent that a ... authority considers it necessary or expedient".
	I assume that that is subject to the usual Wednesbury reasonableness rules. I hope that it can be interpreted with an appropriate degree of flexibility.
	Best value appears to me to be focused rather narrowly on the particular service to be provided. However, we should also consider the context of the new, broad well-being powers, recently introduced by local government legislation. I believe that issues such as equal opportunities and the use of the local workforce are fundamental to the well-being, including the economic well-being, of areas. "Areas" is the word used, but I believe that "local communities" better expresses the matter.
	Equal opportunities and insistence on equal opportunities should have both an immediate and longer-term effect. The use of a local workforce is perhaps a matter for the medium or longer term, but it is important to local economic activity and to regeneration. I should like to think that local authorities can be encouraged to support the development of their local skills bases.
	I am aware also that the bureaucracy, as one might interpret it, and certainly the propriety of the tendering regime now required, just as under the previous rules, can so often rule out small, local companies. It would be entirely reasonable for a local authority to consider it expedient--I use the terms of the order--and, indeed, necessary to look at whom they contract on the wider basis to which I have referred.
	The issue of equal opportunities is dealt with in the circular. Perhaps I may refer to a number of the paragraphs therein. In paragraph 42, we are told that it will be for best value authorities to decide in the light of their own legal advice how far to bring equal opportunities into the contracting process. Of course, I understand that each situation needs to be considered on its own merits. But I am not sure that that is the most helpful introduction to the issue.
	We are told that at the pre-qualification stage for tendering, contractors should be excluded if they have been convicted of a criminal offence or have committed an act of grave misconduct. That is in the context of the legislation on sex, race and disability. That seems to me to be a sadly low threshold.
	We are reminded of the general duty on specified public authorities to promote race equality. We are told also that services which involve regular contact between providers and users of the service or the wider community may require of the providers specific attributes with regard to fair treatment and equal opportunities. As I have indicated, the issue is wider than that. Paragraph 47 goes on to say that authorities should address such considerations in a way that does not prejudice fair competition or best value considerations. As I have indicated, I look at that from the other direction. I do not disagree with what is said there but I argue that best value considerations require consideration of equality issues.
	In paragraph 50, the last paragraph in this section, we are reminded that best value authorities should consider also how they can promote good practice and equal opportunities. There is the word "promote" at last but that is promotion outside the contractual issue.
	In summary, I would say that the circular is far less robust than we had hoped to see.
	The noble Baroness referred to the CBI's comments. I agree entirely with the point that good quality services depend heavily on appropriately skilled and motivated staff. But there is something of the chicken and the egg in that. In order to get appropriately skilled and motivated staff, the authorities which engage them need to use criteria which will be directing the employers of those staff to the issues which I have indicated are so important.
	However, following those somewhat critical comments, I reiterate our welcome for the order.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I welcome the welcome for the order from the Liberal Democrat Benches, even though they have a few doubts about the guidance.
	I was slightly surprised by the contribution from the Conservative Front Bench. While we know that there are historic battles in this respect, in general the concept of best value has been largely welcomed in principle throughout local government of all political persuasions. Inevitably, there have been some teething troubles in introducing the new regime and some of those have caused what the noble Baroness referred to as bureaucratic difficulties. But the concept and the whole approach has been widely supported. It has been supported also in the private sector.
	It is completely erroneous to cite the CBI as opposing this measure because the CBI's general approach is to have clarity but also to have the provisions included within the order. Indeed, the CBI's brief on this matter starts off by saying that it strongly supports the proposed statutory instrument and we are pressed for Part II of the Local Government Act 1988 to be updated in precisely that way. So that is the view of the CBI, which represents, by and large, the people who will be awarded those contracts through that process.
	Nostalgia for retaining CCT is erroneous. In certain respects, CCT had a number of cost achievements resulting from it but it also had a huge rigidity, a devastating presumption in favour of outside contracting and a narrow definition of what the return on the contract should be. This is a much broader approach to value for money, within a broader context of best value and, indeed, of wellbeing. It allows all sorts of quality issues to enter into considerations when assessments are made of the tenders and contractors.
	The best value pilots which we have run already have demonstrated quite substantial savings. Any compliance costs will be more than offset by the improvement in the nature and outcome of the contract. Many local authorities of all complexions have already set their sights on achieving very substantial improvements, over and above the 2 per cent automatic benefit from the best value regime to which the noble Baroness referred. For example, the London Borough of Newham expects to reduce its costs by £8 million and increase quality by 6 per cent by 2002. Leeds is anticipating a saving of £35 million in procurement over the next few years. So before the full operation of this regime has come into effect, significant savings are already expected.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to the issue of how to deal with the workforce and specific issues of equality. That is extremely important. Those matters are part of the value of the contract and the activity of the local authority. It is part of the duties of local authorities to promote equality objectives within their area. That is why the order and guidance are intended to set out the way in which the procurement and contracting process can assist equal opportunities.
	The noble Baroness's other point as regards encouraging the local workforce is slightly more difficult. Clearly, it is part of the local authority's value for a contract to develop the skills and performance of the local workforce. However, there are EU procurement issues which make it rather more difficult to follow absolutely that concept for contracts over a certain value. Nevertheless, it is the broader objectives of how the local workforce should develop and the local authorities' own responsibilities for that which need to be reflected in the contracting process. Therefore, workforce matters are important in consideration of best value in all service delivery areas and for the purpose of achieving best value in terms of assessing the contractors' bids or the contractors themselves in individual contracts. However, it will not enable local authorities to blacklist firms generally from contracting processes. However, if contractors break the law then, in those areas as in others, they may be excluded from tendering more generally.
	I believe that I have demonstrated that there is already value from the best value regime. This removes further inhibitions on that regime. It has been widely welcomed in local government, in the private sector and by the unions. I believe that it will enable local authorities more flexibly and more sensibly to address the wider problems of their neighbourhoods and districts in their procurement process. Therefore, it is a valid function of local government.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the Minister has been fairly damning about competitive tendering. Maybe there was something in the previous legislation that was a little too rigid, but there was absolutely no need for compulsory competitive tendering to be restrictive, although the way in which it operated may have been restrictive. I believe that the Government had a political problem when they changed to this system. It has been welcomed by everybody and far be it from me to object to it, but I believe that the Minister has been unnecessarily damning about a system that in the past many of us have operated extremely successfully.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the concept of having to assess whether a contract is better put to outside tender or dealt with in-house changed the psychology of local government. I am making the point that the rules attached to that, the compulsory nature and the presumptions within it were extremely rigid. Although some cost savings may have been achieved in particular contracts in particular areas, in many instances that rigidity prevented the local authorities from making creative use of the procurement process. I believe that left a bad legacy.
	These regulations are intended to be much more flexible and to have broader objectives built into them. That is why we are removing those barriers. I am not being utterly condemnatory of the CCT process, but on balance I believe that it increased the rigidity and central control rather than giving local authorities the ability to assess the situation themselves. The best value regime is intended to do that, and this order will enable them to do so.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 2001

Lord Davies of Oldham: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st December 2000 be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft order laid before the House on 21st December 2000 be approved. For the convenience of the House I shall speak also to the second order in my name on the Order Paper, the Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Board) Order 2001.
	The proposals before your Lordships seek authority for the Construction Industry Training Board and the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board to impose a levy on the employers in their industries. As your Lordships will know from previous debates, those two boards are the only statutory industrial training boards. They exist because of wide support from employers and employer interest groups in these sectors that believe that without them there would be a serious deterioration in training.
	The proposals are expected to raise between £78 million and £83 million for the Construction ITB and around £10 million for the Engineering Construction ITB. The money will be used to finance their training activities, including grants schemes, and the operating costs of the boards. Provision for that is contained in the Industrial Training Act 1982 and the orders give effect to proposals submitted by the two boards.
	In each case the proposals are based on employers' payrolls and their use of sub-contract labour. Each board has included the provision to raise a levy in excess of 1 per cent of an employer's payroll. The 1982 Act requires that in such cases the proposals must be approved by affirmative resolution of both Houses. The other place has already approved the proposals.
	As required by the Industrial Training Act, both boards have provided for the exemption of small firms from the levy. The level at which this exemption takes effect aims to strike the right balance between helping small firms to grow and giving them an unfair commercial advantage. However, the boards are committed to supporting the training efforts of small firms, whether or not they pay the levy. All companies need a skilled, competent workforce if they are to be competitive and small firms in these sectors are encouraged to take advantage of the services offered by the boards and to provide opportunities for trainees and apprentices.
	The Construction ITB is proposing the following rates: 0.5 per cent of payroll for direct employees and 1.5 per cent of net expenditure on subcontract labour; but employers whose combined payroll and net expenditure on sub-contract labour is less than £61,000 will not be liable to pay the levy. The figure represents a reduction of just over a third on the current rate of 2.28 per cent for sub-contract labour and is part of moving to a single rate of levy, subject to annual consultation throughout the industry.
	The board is significantly increasing its investment in training. It is making additional grants and other resources available to support employers' efforts. This is being wholly financed by cost reductions, an increase in non-levy income and increased levy income from growth in the industry.
	In the case of the Engineering Construction ITB, which assesses head offices and construction sites separately, the following levy rates are proposed: 0.18 per cent of the total of payroll and net expenditure on sub-contract labour for head offices, but head offices whose combined payroll and net expenditure on sub-contract labour is £1 million or less will not be liable to pay the levy; and a levy rate of 1.5 per cent of the total of payroll and net expenditure on sub-contract labour for construction sites, but sites whose combined payroll and net expenditure on sub-contract labour is £75,000 or less will not be liable to pay the levy.
	The proposals from the Engineering Construction ITB are the same as those approved by your Lordships last year. For both boards the proposals involve levy rates in excess of 0.2 per cent, with no provision for exempting employers who make their own training arrangements. In such cases the Industrial Training Act requires boards to demonstrate that the proposals have the support of the employers in the industry.
	I am satisfied that each board has that necessary support. All of the key employer federations have been consulted about the levy rates and agree that these rates are necessary to fund the boards' training plans.
	My honourable friend in another place will be meeting with the chairs of each board--Jim Rowland from the ECITB and Hugh Try from the CITB--in the spring to discuss their performance over the last year and to look at key issues for the future. In particular, we shall look at how their work in England will inform and influence that of the regional development agencies and, from April, the new Learning and Skills Council.
	Each board is also the government-recognised national training organisation for its sector and is fully involved with the national network. We welcome the importance that each is placing on a forward-looking strategic planning process informed by rigorous analysis of skill needs and supply. We believe that this is crucial if they are to ensure that the education, training, skills and qualifications needs of their sectors, both now and for the future, are met.
	The draft orders before the House will enable the two boards to carry out their vital training responsibilities in 2001. I believe that it is right that the House should agree to approve them. I commend them to the House.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st December 2000 be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee].--(Lord Davies of Oldham.)

Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the two orders before us this evening. As my honourable friend Graham Brady stated during the earlier passage of these orders in another place, the Conservative Party is sceptical about industrial boards in general. However, we believe that the Construction Board and Engineering Construction Board perform valuable functions which we are content to support. These industries are important and it is right that we should look to support the acquisition of skills through appropriate mechanisms.
	The orders give the power to impose a compulsory levy or charge on business backed up by recourse to the employment tribunals to enforce the payment of those levies. The issue of tribunals is an important one as we are currently seeing a burgeoning litigation culture in which our hard-pressed employers are being regarded increasingly as an easy route to compensation payments.
	In October, ACAS reported a 32 per cent rise during 1999-2000 in individual complaints. According to Personnel Today, the human resources weekly,
	"the raft of legislative changes brought in under the Employment Relations Act 1999 is the chief factor behind the big rise in tribunal claims reported by ACAS".
	According to ACAS, the lowering of the qualifying period for unfair dismissal cases from two years to one is estimated to have generated an extra 6,700 cases, while the working time regulations and the national minimum wage account for an extra 7,000 cases.
	I raise this point to illustrate that we are seeing a growth in employment litigation, and moreover that this increase stems largely from new regulations imposed by this Government on business. Hence, I share the concern expressed by my honourable friend in another place that we should seek to keep the number of tribunals arising from these orders to a minimum. The Minister in another place implied that relatively few cases regarding the levy go to tribunal, but I hope that the Minister will assure us that these orders will be unlikely to increase that load.
	Another important point concerns the issue of costs associated with the levy and whether this results in receivership. In another place the Minister was unable to answer the question of how many cases arise each year in which the levy is a factor in bringing about receivership. I should be grateful if the Minister were able to cast any light on that point today.
	The reason I ask about these important issues is because of the desire on this side of the House to ensure that obligations placed in business by the state do not result in adverse effects on enterprise or employment. However, we recognise the importance of these respective levies and are supportive of the orders.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, from these Benches, I rise to welcome the orders. We strongly believe that these training boards have successfully run the levy system for the past 20 years. They want the system and we believe that it is appropriate. Labour in the construction industry is casual and flexible, moving from one employer to another. Training is vitally important if we are to maintain standards on construction sites and we do not want the quality of labour to be let down by the bad employers.
	That said, I want to ask the Minister several specific questions. First, he said that his colleague in another place would soon meet representatives of the Learning and Skills Council. Can he say what they see as the future relationship between the construction industry training board and its engineering counterpart and the Learning and Skills Council?
	Secondly, can he indicate what the relationship with the University for Industry would be? What would be the relative role in relation to the training boards? Thirdly, I cannot find in the order an indication of its length or why it is being brought before us. Is it that it comes before the House on an annual basis or is it because there are changes in the rate of levy?
	Finally, has the department monitored the order? This is the only industry which uses the levy grant system, the others being phased out by the Conservative government in the 1980s. It would be useful to know how far the Government believe it has been successful in raising standards of training in the industry. It is not an industry in which the levels of workmanship are always high; the ordinary citizen suffers greatly from many cowboy operators within it. There are also considerable skill shortages in the industry. On London building sites all construction industry skills are considerable. Given that, one wonders whether the system has been monitored in any way by the department. Has it thought of other ways of raising skills?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful for the general affirmation of support from both noble Baronesses and I recognise that we need to cover some points of detail. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, the number of appeals to tribunals is limited. Out of 59,000 companies registered with the board, thirty-five cases were referred to employment tribunals. Any reference to a tribunal indicates friction and the fact that people are less than satisfied with their treatment, but that is a healthy record and should allay concerns about the operation of the order.
	The noble Baroness also asked whether the levy drove companies into receivership or bankruptcy? Neither of the boards is aware of any such cases. Without analysing in detail the accounts of every insolvent firm it would be impossible to determine exactly what part the levy demand played on the overall solvency. Boards want to accept payments in instalments from companies with cash flow problems--it is not the business of the boards to see companies go out of existence. There is therefore an understanding of the problems. These are industries in which there is great fluctuation of employment and many small companies. That is why there is also a significant exemption for the very small companies. We are dealing with industries which are fluctuating, fragile and seasonal and it is a tribute to the boards that for more than 20 years they have worked with a degree of success.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, asked several specific questions. If the boards propose to impose a levy of 1 per cent or more, the primary legislation obliges the orders to be tabled before the House after full consultation with the industry and subject to the affirmative procedure. The orders will not come before the House annually if the levies are below 1 per cent. However, they are frequently before the House because the levy is more than 1 per cent. That is the reason why the orders are being moved tonight.
	The noble Baroness asked an interesting question about the relationship between the industrial training boards and the two new actors on the scene; the Learning and Skills Council, which is of the greatest significance given its substantial budget, and the University for Industry and Learning Direct. There is a great deal of scope for co-operation. Learning Direct in particular is seeking to make substantial progress with the small firms who are not within the framework of the levy for the boards. They are too small and fall into the exempt category.
	As to the broader issue of the relationship with the Learning and Skills Council, I am aware that for many months very substantial consultations have taken place on the establishment of that body. I am not in a position to give a detailed outline of progress, but there is not the slightest doubt that the success of that body will depend on the way in which it relates to the industrial training boards, national training organisations and every other category of training supply, skills enhancements and learning in the country. The noble Baroness probably signals the need for a much more substantial debate once the Learning and Skills Council comes into operation on 1st April.
	I hope that I have answered most of the questions raised by noble Baronesses opposite. I commend the order to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Board) Order 2001

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I formally move the order.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st December 2000 be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee].--(Lord Davies of Oldham.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Pig Industry Restructuring (Capital Grant) Scheme

Baroness Hayman: rose to move, That the scheme laid before the House on 1st February be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the two Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper deal with specific policy developments in the pig sector which arose in the course of the past year. The Pig Industry Development Scheme 2000 (Confirmation) Order 2001 relates to last year's outbreak of classical swine fever in East Anglia where pig producers whose herds did not have the disease but which were none the less caught up by the movement controls found themselves faced with extremely difficult animal welfare problems. To help deal with these problems the Government introduced the unprecedented Pig Welfare (Disposal) Scheme. In the period between 31st August and 31st December 2000 that scheme cost the taxpayer over £14 million, of which £9 million was direct payment to producers.
	As part of the agreement to change the payment structure of the scheme, the industry agreed to provide a top-up payment to those making use of it by way of a levy fund. The Government welcomed the recognition that, while movement controls affected the few, their introduction to control the spread of disease was of benefit to the whole industry.
	The only mechanism available to introduce a compulsory levy on pig producers is a Meat and Livestock Commission development scheme under the Agriculture Act 1967. The aim of the scheme is to build up an industry fund to be used to provide advice, services, facilities and financial assistance to pig producers to assist them in the prevention and/or limitation of the spread of an outbreak of pig disease. It will be collected in the form of an industry levy, set initially at 20p per pig slaughtered, although the order allows a maximum of £1 per pig to be charged. The first use of the fund will be the industry top-up to the payments already made under the Pig Welfare (Disposal) Scheme to producers faced with CSF movement restrictions.
	The scheme is a state aid and, therefore, requires clearance by the European Commission before introduction. While we believe that that clearance will be forthcoming very shortly, as the two-month deadline for Commission comments has now passed, in accordance with the rules we have written to the Commission to say that we intend to introduce the scheme in mid-March when it has passed all its parliamentary procedures.
	It will take some time to build up the fund to a level whereby payments to producers can be made. To help remedy that, my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is prepared to look at authorising a loan from the Aujeszky's Fund to the development scheme fund to allow small but nevertheless useful upfront payment to be made. The industry supports such a move, and a formal request from the board of the Aujeszky's Fund has been received and is being considered.
	The scheme is for Great Britain only. The SI requires the consent of the Scottish Executive, which is recorded in the SI, and the approval of the Welsh Assembly. The Assembly has approved the scheme, subject to EU state aid clearance.
	The House will understand that the complexities surrounding a development scheme have resulted in it taking quite some time to reach this advanced stage in the procedures. Nevertheless, we are now able through the scheme to offer assistance to pig producers, and it is being introduced at the behest of the industry as a whole.
	The other statutory instrument with which we are dealing relates to the Pig Industry Restructuring Scheme. This scheme was developed in close consultation with the National Pig Association, the Meat and Livestock Commission, the British Bankers Association and the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers in recognition that the pig sector had faced considerable difficulties in the previous two years and those difficulties needed to be addressed.
	Like a number of other components of the action plan for farming, the Pig Industry Restructuring Scheme is a state aid and as such needs formal clearance by the European Commission before it can be introduced. To obtain that clearance, the Commission was formally notified of the PIRS on 30th March 2000 and clearance was finally forthcoming on 13th December 2000. The clearance process took much longer than we had hoped, but it remains the case that it was achieved in a little over nine months. I believe that the average time for clearance of restructuring schemes by the Commission is nearer 18 months.
	Turning to the details, the Pig Industry Restructuring Scheme consists of two elements: outgoers, which offers aids to those pig producers who wish to end all involvement in pig production permanently, and ongoers, which offers aids to those pig producers who wish to restructure their business to make it more viable in the long term. Assistance under ongoers will be provided in the form of an interest rate rebate on loans linked to an agreed business plan. Pig producers who remain in production and have a commercial loan linked to an agreed business plan are eligible to apply.
	The order that we are debating tonight is narrow in focus, in that it allows for the agreed business loan on which an interest rebate will be paid to be used for capital projects. There is a second order passing through this House under the negative procedures which allows the loan to be used for non-capital projects. The outgoers element of the PIRS is a non-statutory scheme.
	The Pig Industry Restructuring Scheme is open to applicants from all over the United Kingdom. The devolved administrations have been working closely with MAFF to implement the scheme, and all applications from throughout the UK will be judged equally and on their own merits. The order covers England only. Following devolution, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are proceeding with their own legislation in parallel.
	The Government are totally committed to the Pig Industry Development Scheme and the Pig Industry Restructuring Scheme and are determined to make them work. They provide much needed financial support to an industry which has suffered terribly over the past few years and demonstrate our commitment to the UK pig industry. They are particularly relevant perhaps in the difficult days that the whole of the livestock industry faces at the moment. I commend the orders to the House. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the scheme laid before the House on 1st February be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].--(Baroness Hayman.)

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for coming before the House today to present the scheme. The Minister has our total support for the work that MAFF is carrying out elsewhere to fight foot and mouth disease. The industry also welcomes this scheme. Having read Hansard of another place--I have done a good deal of that recently--I should like to probe a few of the numbers and crave the assistance of the noble Baroness.
	As I understand it, initially the Pig Industry Restructuring Scheme was to have received £66 million: £26 million for the current year, £20 million for 2001-02 and £20 million for 2002-03. The noble Baroness said that it took some time to get the scheme off the ground but, considering that it had to go through Europe, it was not really that long. I am quite prepared to give the Government the benefit of the doubt and accept that most of the time was taken up in Europe rather than Whitehall. As a result of that, it would seem that the first year's allocation of £26 million, or most of it, has disappeared. I am not quite sure what has happened. We hoped that it would be rolled forward. But I understand that some of the £22 million has been spent on the outbreak of swine fever. I thought that when the assistance for the outbreak of swine fever was set up the money had already been allocated. I am trying to find out what happened to £22 million.
	We are now left with £40 million. As the noble Baroness pointed out, it is both an outgoers and an ongoers scheme. I understand that that was part of Europe's insistence that some of the money should be spent on taking capacity out of the marketplace. It was decided that £16 million should go into that side of the scheme. Today, it seems that £40 million is left in the scheme, of which £16 million goes to outgoers. That leaves only £24 million for reinvestment in the industry. I understand that the industry, quite rightly, is more interested in its survival and future than in those leaving. In particular, the noble Baroness will know that many ancillary jobs and businesses are dependent on the successful survival of the industry. Can the noble Baroness assure the House and the industry that the missing millions will be reinstated in year three of the scheme and that the figures I have quoted are something near correct? Having read Hansard of another place, I was not particularly clear on that point.
	Perhaps I may turn briefly to the Pig Industry Development Scheme, which, having listened to the noble Baroness's clear explanation, I probably understood even less well. The scheme was set up in agreement with the Government to help the pig industry after the awful diseases and as an insurance against future problems. It started because the Government could come to an agreement of £50 per animal whereas the industry said that it needed £70. The net result is the scheme before the House, with the industry having the power to raise a levy, which in the long-term must be a good thing.
	Where does the noble Baroness expect the first year's levy to start at? Although in the legislation there is £1, I do not believe that the industry could even begin to take on a levy of that nature. I should be interested to hear where the Government think the levy will start from. What is the total target for the levy? Are the Government prepared to offer the industry an interest-free loan to get the scheme started? The noble Baroness made some encouraging remarks to that end. I was not absolutely certain whether that was what she was referring to. Having made those points, I support the Government on both the schemes.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, we on the Liberal Democrat Benches very much support the two statutory instruments. I echo some of the points made from the Conservative Benches by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. The size of the fund in the Pig Industry Development Scheme is not stated anywhere and yet a quite ambitious programme is set out in the functions of the board that is to be set up by the commission. It is not simply confined to giving emergency aid to those who are affected by restrictions on the movement of pigs or those who are pig producers affected by the incidence of any pig disease. There is an ongoing duty to give financial assistance to pig producers to make structural and other changes to their business premises in order to prevent and/or limit the spread of any incidence of pig disease. A quite expensive programme is to be undertaken. I should be interested to know how much money we are talking about. How long will the levy take to arrive at anything like a sufficient capital sum to fund the rather ambitious functions that the board, under the commission, may have?
	Should there be another crisis in the future--let us get over the one with which the noble Baroness is dealing at the moment--how quickly can the board move to process applications for grant? There is a cumbersome collection procedure in making the levy on the slaughterer, who has then to go down the chain to collect it from the original owner of the animal. One wonders whether the machinery is sufficiently flexible to achieve the object of rapid help to farmers when a crisis emerges. I underline the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, about the necessity to have a significant fund to get the scheme underway.
	I turn to the Pig Industry Restructuring (Capital Grant) Scheme. Can the noble Baroness confirm that the grant payable under the scheme is a one-off grant and not an annual grant, that it is limited to 5 per cent of existing loans as well as future loans and that whether those loans are existing loans or future loans, they must be supported by a business plan? A great deal of paperwork must be gone through in order to apply for the grant. At the end of the day, how much money is involved? Is it £24 million, to adopt the arithmetic of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, or is it an open-ended fund? Can anyone apply provided that he or she qualifies? Whatever the ultimate cost, is there a cap on it? Are there future plans for this kind of grant to be included in the agricultural grant, the Comprehensive Spending Review, and so on? Are we looking at something in the short-term or is a permanent scheme being put forward?
	Having made those comments, I say again that we very much support the schemes. We very much hope that, after tonight, the noble Baroness will be able to return to her much more pressing duties and conquer the plague that is afflicting the countryside.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, when the Minister comes to reply, can she clarify how devolution is working in respect of the two instruments? She said in relation to the Pig Industry Restructuring (Capital Grant) Scheme that the Scottish Executive is devising its own scheme. I understand that to be the situation. However, in relation to the Pig Industry Development Scheme, she said that the Welsh Assembly had already agreed to it. But she did not say whether the Scottish Executive had agreed. Is that agreement still to come? Does the order have to wait until the Scottish Executive has agreed before it can be brought into force? I may have misunderstood the position, but it is better to be clear about these matters.

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, perhaps I may reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, first. I may not have been absolutely clear. The Pig Industry Development Scheme is for Great Britain only. The SI requires the consent of the Scottish Executive, which is already recorded in the SI. The Welsh Assembly has approved the scheme subject to EU state clearance, but it is recorded in the SI.
	Continuing with the Pig Industry Development Scheme, I shall try to clarify the position. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, asked me about the levy. The initial levy will be set at 20p per pig. An upper limit has been set, but the initial levy will be set at that figure. On that basis, and on the basis of the market operating as it did before the recent events, it will take around 20 months to collect the required funding for the initial use of the fund; that is, the top-up payment to those payments from government funding that have already been made under the Pig Welfare (Disposal) Scheme. Some £4 million needs to be raised to achieve that.
	The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, asked how we will collect the levy. That will be done through the system established by the Meat and Livestock Commission. The commission has been deeply involved in the formulation of the scheme and in the consultation. It has set up a collection system and it is happy that it can be administered without any unnecessary bureaucracy.
	The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, asked me about the possibility of making available a loan with regard to pump priming the Pig Industry Development Scheme.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I asked about the possibility of an interest-free loan.

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, we must consider two issues here. First, the noble Lord may be aware that we have in place an existing, limited fund called the Aujeszky's Fund, which I mentioned in my opening remarks. The trustees have already put in an application to use it for up-front payments. Once the scheme is fully operational and the board--which will make decisions about future use--is in place, either the board or the MLC may wish to consider seeking a commercial loan in order to build up the development scheme and so allow early payment of moneys to eligible producers. An interest-free loan from government to finance the fund would constitute yet another state aid and thus would require Commission clearance. The delays that that would cause have been made clear tonight. It would not be an effective way in which to get an early payment to producers.
	So far as the future of the fund is concerned, I should point out that setting it up has proved to be a complicated business. Fairly wide parameters have been built in to cover what it aims to do. That was very much related to the primary legislation under which it has been set up. We have made it clear that the agreed first use is the £4 million top-up payment of the government-funded Pig Welfare (Disposal) Scheme. Once that commitment has been met, it will be a matter for the board of the Pig Industry Development Scheme to decide how the fund might be used.
	Perhaps I may turn now to the Pig Industry Restructuring Fund and try to make the position clearer than perhaps was achieved in another place. However, the matter is not without complexity. I shall respond to some of the questions rightly asked by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, as regards the funding of the scheme.
	The noble Lord knows that three tranches have been made available, totalling £66 million over the three-year funding period for the scheme. However, because of the difficulties in obtaining commission clearance, which was not secured until the end of December last year, the £26 million allocated for the year 2000-01 will not now be spent on the Pig Industry Restructuring Scheme. My right honourable friend undertook to ensure that that money would go to the pig industry. That has now taken place and, in the main, the funds have been spent on dealing with the classical swine fever outbreak in East Anglia.
	Any remaining sum from that £26 million, which will be at least £3.9 million, will be carried forward into the financial year 2001-02 and spent on the Pig Industry Restructuring Scheme. In addition, the Minister has announced that the £20 million allocated to the scheme for 2002-03 will be brought forward to be used in 2001-02. That means that we shall have a total budget of £44 million in the next financial year. That is in recognition of the fact that we shall be opening a second tranche of the outgoers' scheme in case more people wish to take it up. In fairness to the applicants already in place, we have closed the first tranche.
	The noble Lord rightly will ask me what will happen in subsequent years. Additional funding for future years takes us into the next spending review. For that reason, I cannot make any commitment, except to say that, in general terms, the Government are determined to ensure that the scheme meets its objectives. The noble Lord will understand that we cannot make commitments about the next tranche. However, as I have said, we are bringing forward the funds from the year after this one in order to make more moneys available.
	As regards the method of application, the aid provided is based on a sealed bid, put in by the applicant, giving a figure for how much is required per sow place for him or her to leave the industry. All sealed bids will be opened at the same time and the bids will be measured against a set of value for money criteria that have been agreed previously. Outgoers 1 closed for applications on Friday, 2nd March and sealed bids will be opened later this week. It is hoped that the successful applicants will be informed by the end of March. However, we recognise that a number of pig producers who had intended to carry on in business may now be thinking again as a result of the foot and mouth outbreak. That is why we have decided to open an Outgoers 2 scheme from 12th March. The cap is in the form of the funding that will be available each year for the scheme.
	I hope that that answers the questions put to me by the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Thomas of Gresford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. On that basis, I hope that the House will agree to the Motion.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Pig Industry Development Scheme 2000 (Confirmation) Order 2001

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 7th February be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee].--(Baroness Hayman.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) Order 2001

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 1st February be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, the House is asked to consider this draft order, which is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The purpose of the order is to give the Scottish Executive the power to provide grants to the Strategic Rail Authority in respect of passenger rail services provided under Scottish franchises.
	Under the arrangements for the devolution of functions to the Scottish Parliament, railways are a reserved matter to the Westminster Parliament. However, the Government made a number of commitments during the passage of the Scotland Bill to ensure that Scottish Ministers would have an appropriate level of control over Scottish passenger rail services within the overall Great Britain framework--a set of commitments known as the "McLeish Settlement". The Government have been working progressively towards implementing measures to meet those commitments and the order we are considering today represents the virtual completion of this process.
	The order is made under Section 63 of the Scotland Act. Section 63 provides that an Order in Council may be made for, among other things, any function of a UK Minister of the Crown, so far as it is exercisable in or as regards Scotland, to be exercisable by Scottish Ministers instead of, or concurrently with, the UK Minister.
	The order makes provision for Scottish Ministers to exercise the powers given to the Secretary of State under paragraph 7 of Schedule 14 to the Transport Act 2000. That paragraph provides that the Secretary of State,
	"may make to the [Strategic Rail] Authority grants of such amounts, on such terms, as he may determine".
	The order lists the functions that can be exercised by the Scottish Ministers. These are the making of grants for funding passenger rail services which, first, start and end in Scotland and are provided under a franchise agreement; and, secondly, which either start or end in Scotland and are provided under a franchise agreement by someone who also holds a franchise in the first category. In practice, this means the services currently provided under the ScotRail franchise, including the Scottish sleeper services and the small number of cross-border services operated by ScotRail. Apart from the cross-border services, these are the same services for which the Scottish Ministers can give directions and guidance to the SRA under Section 208 of the Transport Act.
	The Scottish Ministers will also become responsible for funding services under this franchise should it ever become necessary for the SRA to exercise its duty under Section 30 of the Railways Act 1993 as the operator of last resort. The Scottish Executive currently funds the Strathclyde Passenger Transport Authority elements of the ScotRail franchise. It will now become responsible for funding the entire franchise.
	The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions will transfer funds to the Executive to enable it to provide grants to the SRA to meet the funding requirements under the ScotRail franchise in the financial year 2001-02 and the following two years. Contractual franchise payments for 2001-02 are estimated to amount to £111 million. Funding for the Executive will be adjusted if necessary to reflect performance payments or receipts and the rail regulator's periodic review of Railtrack's access charges.
	Until the end of the current Scottish franchise, there will be a similar transfer to the Scottish Executive from the DETR's current Spending Review 2000 provision to cover the fixed franchise payments. From 2004-05 onwards, however, it will be for the Scottish Executive to include provision for the Scottish rail franchise in its own future spending plans.
	The Scottish Ministers' powers under the order will be exercisable concurrently with those of the Secretary of State. We are committed to giving the Scottish Executive financial responsibility for the Scottish franchise from 1st April this year. But the Secretary of State needs to retain the ability to make grants to the SRA in respect of the Scottish franchise, so that Scotland can benefit from GB-wide initiatives such as the rail passenger partnership scheme. For example, any payments to the Scottish franchise operator under the rail passenger partnership may be incorporated in the relevant franchise agreement, and such payments by the SRA would be funded by the Secretary of State rather than by the Scottish Executive.
	The Secretary of State's retention of this power will not affect the Scottish Ministers' independent exercise of the power, or their role in issuing directions and guidance to the SRA in respect of the Scottish franchise and advice in relation to other operators' services that serve Scotland.
	In exercising, or declining to exercise, its powers under the Transport Act, the SRA is required to comply with directions and guidance issued by the Secretary of State, including the financial framework that he has set for the authority. The overall Great Britain framework will thus be preserved. The powers of the Scottish Ministers to give directions and guidance remain those under the Transport Act.
	The power to make direct grants to the SRA in respect of the Scottish franchise will enable the Scottish Executive to target funds effectively and give a financial lever over the strategic development of rail services in Scotland. This order demonstrates the Government's commitment to delivering the appropriate oversight of Scottish passenger services to the Scottish Executive within the overall GB policy framework for the railways. I commend the draft order to the House. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 1st February be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee].--(Lord Macdonald of Tradeston.)

Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for outlining the purpose of the order, which appears to make good sense. We have studied the order carefully and note that it is as the result of a commitment made during the passage of the Scotland Bill. We therefore have no objections to the passing of this order.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining the purpose and effect of this Scottish devolution order. It interests me for two reasons: my almost hereditary interest in Scottish autonomy and my lifelong interest in railway operations, which will colour somewhat my response to the order.
	I should like to compliment, once again, the helpful executive briefing note attached to the order and sent down by the Scottish Executive.
	This is a Scotland Act Type A order requiring scrutiny by both Houses. Section 63(1)(b) of the Scotland Act allows the Scottish Ministers to share responsibility for, in this case, making grants to the holder of the ScotRail franchise, who may not always be National Express.
	The order refers to working concurrently. This seems to mean that, while the Secretary of State at the DETR will retain powers to make grants for the Scottish passenger rail franchise, he will not be using them--a self-denying ordinance on most occasions--but I suspect that that is in line with the theory of devolution.
	What is more interesting and worrying is the matter of the funds behind this order. While speaking to the 3rd Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation in another place, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Mr Keith Hill, explained that the DETR transfers £111 million per year to the Scottish consolidated fund so that the Scottish Ministers can send it on to the Strategic Rail Authority, which will ultimately pay the £111 million as a grant to the ScotRail franchise holder.
	This long-winded funding trail will last until 2004. At this point it seems that the DETR will cease to send funds to the Scottish consolidated fund and the Scottish Executive will have to find the ScotRail franchise funds from within the Scottish block grant. Will the Scottish block grant be adjusted specifically to take this into account after 2004?
	The order will give the Scottish Ministers a greater chance to influence the development of rail services in Scotland. That is, of course, somewhat barbed by the need to back that influence with funding--but then, there is more to passenger rail services than franchise funding.
	The other partner in this is, of course, the public, who must adopt the new services and make them self-sustaining. It is one thing to introduce a new passenger rail service on an existing operational railway line--a year or so ago, ScotRail trialled a commuter service from Dingwall to Inverness on a "use it or lose it" basis; that is the easy example--but more problematic is the creation of a passenger service on a railway which is mothballed, dismantled or in need of creation anew.
	The Minister will not be surprised that the example offered here is the Alloa to Stirling passenger project. In this example the service cannot be offered on a simple "use it or lose it" trial basis; the railway has first to be restored. I acknowledge that there is a concurrent project to repair the railway from Stirling through Alloa and on to Kincardine for freight purposes, mainly the delivery of coal to Longannet power station. I declare an interest: this potential freight line goes past my home.
	I wish to make two points on this issue. My first point concerns capital grants for the restoration of the railway infrastructure. Although an impressive list of contributors is assembled, too much is expected of the Clackmannanshire council--£3.5 million, I believe. I wish to make the point that the re-establishment of this rail link will have as many national benefits as local ones.
	My second point concerns car parking at the proposed Alloa station. As car drivers often need to be extracted from their cars with the proverbial can opener, it will be vital that there is more than adequate car parking. Regrettably, car drivers need little excuse not to use public transport. Mild anxiety about not finding a car park space is all that many will need.
	This order fulfils an earlier commitment and, in effect, devolves greater powers to the Scottish Parliament. I am always in favour of such a devolutionary trend, especially if there are funds attached to it. I welcome the order and look forward to the introduction of a further order, which, I believe, will transfer legislative competence for powers to promote and construct new railways in Scotland, devolving it to the Scottish Parliament.
	I note that the order applies only to passenger services out with the Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive area. Finally, I observe that the provision of grants for rail freight facilities is already devolved to the Scottish Parliament within Section 249 of the Transport Act 2000. I presume that that will not require any secondary legislation.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the question I had in mind to ask the Minister was a very simple one; namely, what does the order mean when it says that Scottish Ministers and a Minister of the Crown will act concurrently? I then heard the Minister's explanation which was of enormous complexity. Indeed, it was quite difficult to follow precisely what will happen. I am sure that we trust the Minister in that he has a full-proof scheme. But, following from the noble Earl's questions, I understood the Minister to say that the department would decide the amount that would be given to the franchise holder until the year 2004, and that that money would be passed to the Scottish Executive which would, in turn, pass it on. After 2004, I presume that it will be for the Scottish Executive to decide the amounts that might be given in grant.
	Can the Minister say how the funding of the Scots Parliament will actually be arranged in that case? Will an earmarked amount be provided by the department? Alternatively, will the government of the day make a sort of "stab" at the amount that the Scottish Executive might want? It seems a rather peculiar arrangement to me, because grants to railway companies are not quite like the other services that the Scottish Executive has to fund. Can the Minister give us an idea--I believe that this is what the noble Earl was asking--of how the funding will be decided? That is an important matter.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, demonstrated, as ever, a very impressive grasp of the background both of the legislation and of rail matters. As regards some of the noble Earl's more detailed questions about the nature of rail services in Alloa--I am aware of his commitment to Clackmannanshire--I am sure that he would not expect me to deal with the details involved.
	However, through the rail passenger partnership scheme, which is one of the areas where we shall continue to work through our concurrency with rail services in Scotland, a pre-qualification bid has been received from Clackmannanshire council and is currently being evaluated. As the noble Earl will know, the proposal is to build a new station at Alloa and to introduce an hourly Alloa to Glasgow rail service. That is an example of the rail passenger partnership scheme offering the prospect of help inside Scotland, in addition to the services provided by ScotRail under contract.
	Looking at the way that these payments are committed, I should emphasise to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, that the franchise payments made before 2004 are contractually committed. Subsequent to 2004, the funding of the replacement Scottish franchise will be met by Scottish Ministers out of the Scottish-assigned budget; in other words, out of the block grant that is negotiated for Scotland.
	I turn to the question of concurrency that the noble Baroness posed. It is important for us to be able to invest in Scotland in parallel with the other commitments that we have through franchise. Incidentally, I should just clarify that, although money goes from the Government, it does not go to the franchise owner in the first instance, as has been suggested; it goes to the Strategic Rail Authority and is then passed on to the franchise owner--in this case, ScotRail. As I said, after the year 2004, it will be paid for through the block grant.
	Again, as I am sure the noble Earl is aware, we have been making it clear that the DETR will remain responsible for paying the grant to the SRA, in order to fund railway improvements in Scotland. Through the rail passenger partnership scheme that I mentioned, we shall also be able to improve the railway services in Scotland; we shall also be able to do so through the SRA contracting directly with Railtrack for enhancements to the network, if that is required. The Scottish Executive will continue to be able to fund rail projects directly, rather than via the SRA through its existing powers. For example, such payments can be made from the Scottish Executive's public transport fund. Much more money has been made available in the context of the Spending Review 2000 for transport matters, and that increases the chance that I mentioned of 20 per cent per year for transport matters. Although the authority over the spending of that money is delegated to Scotland, it will also be available for the improvement of transport.
	As far as concerns freight grants, there is no need for more orders because all of those powers are already devolved to Scotland. I hope that my answers do not add to the complexity mentioned by the noble Baroness, and that the order will commend itself to the House.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps he could confirm whether I understood the situation correctly. After the year 2004, it sounded to me as though it will be up to the Scottish Executive to lobby for the necessary increase in grant that will be needed to cover the investment that has previously been made directly. Am I correct in my understanding?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: No, my Lords. Subject to Parliament voting the main Supply Estimates for the year 2001-02, the Scottish Executive would receive transfers arranged by the DETR of £111 million for 2001-02, as I mentioned, £108 million for 2002-03 and £107 million for 2003-04. Those are the amounts required on current estimates to fund the fixed payments under the existing ScotRail franchise. However, there may be some extra public expenditure until 2004, which would be affected by, for example, the decisions made by the rail regulator on track access charging and how that applied in Scotland. Subsequently, from 2004-05 and onwards there will be a new spending review period.
	From 1st April 2004, it will be for the Scottish Executive to include provision for the Scottish rail franchise in its own spending plans. But those would be funded out of the Scottish Executive's block grant, so the lobbying, if you like, would be part of the much larger negotiation about Scotland's share inside that spending review period.
	The order we are debating today allows the Scottish Ministers to make grants to the SRA for the purposes specified in the schedule to the order. The levels of funding to be provided will be determined by the public expenditure mechanisms, some of which I have outlined. However, as I say, the more general mechanism comes into play in 2004.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Leeds Supertram (Land Acquisition and Road Works) Order 2001

Leeds Supertram (Extension) Order

The report by the Chairman of Committees and the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons, pursuant to Section 3(5) of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act 1945, that no petitions had been presented against the Leeds Supertram (Land Acquisition and Road Works) Order 2001 nor against the Leeds Supertram (Extension) Order 2001 was laid before the House and ordered to lie on the Table.
	House adjourned at nine o'clock.